Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:01:10PM +0000, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 19:43:39 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 18:16:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > > 
> > > You may well be literally the only person on Earth who dislikes
> > > the use of "static" in "static if". -- Andrei
> > 
> > You have to admit that static is used in a lot of different places
> > in D.  It doesn't always mean something like compile-time either.
> > For instance, a static member function is not a compile time member
> > function. However, I doubt something like this is going to change,
> > so it doesn't really bother me.
> > 
> > I liked the way that the Sparrow language (from the presentation you
> > posted a few weeks ago) did it. Instead of static if, they use
> > if[ct].
> 
> I like static if :)

I like static if too. I think if[ct] is more awkward to type, even
though it's fewer characters.

But yeah, D *has* overloaded the "static" keyword perhaps a little more
than it ought to have.  But at the end of the day it's just syntax...
there are far more pressing issues to worry about than syntax at the
moment.


T

-- 
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell