[article] Language Design Deal Breakers

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:24:46 +0200, deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:

> No you are distording what I say.

I am.


> I said, and repeat it for the nth time, that the job compilerwise is the  
> exact same.

And I'm saying (for the nth time - or is it n+1th?) it isn't, because there
are other issues that also need to be fleshed out for non-nullable  
pointers.


> The code sample you present me is completely stupid. It simply show that  
> you are confused between compiler implementation and language design.

No, it shows that I'm confused by your consistently claiming that  
non-nullable
pointers only require that the compiler track initialization. This is *not*
enough.

But really, at this point we either actually do agree and just use  
different
words, or we'll never agree.

-- 
Simen