Is it time for D 3.0?

[krzaq]

On Sunday, 29 March 2020 at 01:21:25 UTC, NaN wrote:
> Firstly either way you have to remember something, u16 or 
> short. So there's memorization whatever way you slice it.

But you don't have to remember anything other than what you want 
to use. When you want a 16 bit unsigned integer you don't have to 
mentally lookup the type you want, because you already spelled 
it. And if you see a function accepting a long you don't have to 
think "Is this C? If so, is this Windows or not(==is this LP64)? 
Or maybe it's D? But what was the size of a long in D? oh, 64"

If you argued that when you want just an integer then you 
shouldn't need to provide its size, I'd grant you a point. But if 
anything, `int` should be an alias to whatever is fast on current 
arch, not the other way around.

> Secondly those processors from the last millennium are still 
> the dominant processors of this millennium.

Are they really? I have more ARMs around me than I do x86's. 
Anyway, they're compatible, but not the same. "double precision" 
doesn't really mean much outside of hardcore number crunching, 
and short is (almost?) never used as an optimization on integer, 
but a limitation of its domain. And, at least for C and C++, any 
style guide will tell you to use a type with a meaningful name 
instead.

>> Programming languages should aim to lower the cognitive load 
>> of their programmers, not the opposite.
>
> I agree, but this is so irrelevant it's laughable.
>

It is very relevant. Expecting the programmer to remember that 
some words mean completely different things than anywhere else is 
not good, and the more of those differences you have, the more 
difficult it is to use the language. And it's just not the type 
names, learning that you have to use enum instead of immutable or 
const for true constants was just as mind-boggling to me as 
learning that inline means anything but inline in C++.

>
>> To paraphrase your agument:
>> A mile is 1760 yards
>> A yard is 3 feet
>> A foot is 12 inches
>> What's so hard to understand? If that is causing you problems 
>> then you probably need to reconsider your career path.
>
> If your job requires you to work in inches, feet and yards 
> every single day then yes you should know that off the top of 
> your head and you shouldn't even have to try.
>
> And if you find it difficult then yes you should reconsider 
> your career path. If you struggle with basic arithmetic then 
> you shouldn't really be looking at a career in engineering.

That's circular reasoning. The whole argument is that your day 
job shouldn't require rote memorization of silly incantations. As 
for "basic arithmetic" - there is a reason why the whole world, 
bar one country, moved to a sane unit system.