@safe(bool)

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 19:56:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 21:46, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 19:24:08 UTC, bitwise wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 00:33:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> If you need an IDE to figure out what your code is doing, 
>>>> that's an epic fail IMHO. Walter has made similar statements 
>>>> on several occasions.
>>>
>>> There was a time that people would write code with even 
>>> modest performance requirements in assembler for fear of what 
>>> the compiler would spit out, but that's in the past, as is 
>>> the notion of trying to develop without an IDE.
>> 
>> You shouldn't rely on an IDE to compensate poor language 
>> design. That is coming from a guy who prefers IDE's.
>
> I disagree with both the notion that this is poor language 
> design and that an IDE is required to make sense out of code 
> that uses the new feature.

"Required" is a bit of a strong word here. In the absence of good 
practice, any language feature can be abused to make code 
confusing.

Function overloading is a good example of a feature that is 
usable as is, but made much better with a good IDE. But the same 
way I wouldn't name every function in a class "performAction" and 
pass a 50 member enum to it to tell it what to actually do, I 
wouldn't have more than 4-5 different types of function attribute 
combinations, and if I did, I wouldn't spread them out among 10 
different files. What little extra effort it takes to look up the 
attributes of a function in an atmosphere of good practice can 
easily be made up for with good tools, and no one _has_ to use 
bundled up attributes.