DIP1000 observation

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:50:11PM +0000, Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 26 August 2024 at 21:53:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > It feels like D is trying too hard to be what it isn't. The original
> > design with GC was clean, ergonomic, and productive. This is the
> > core of D that still constitutes the major reason why I'm still
> > using it.  Then the @nogc crowd showed up, and we bent over
> > backwards to please them. As a result, the language was bent out of
> > shape with attribute soup and half-solutions to the wrong problems
> > that did little to improve the experience of existing D users, while
> > still failing to please the GC objectioners.
> 
> The goal of DIP1000 is to make pointers to stack memory @safe, not
> really about making non-GC heap allocation safe (though it may help
> with that and is a consideration). Strong support for memory-safe
> stack allocation absolutely is what D needs, because its aims are to
> produce efficient code which is not bug-prone. There can be debate on
> how what kinds of interface can be @safe, but the core of DIP1000 is
> doing what it should.

This analysis could have been done in compiler, transparently to the
user.  The user should not have to care about this.  The fact that it
resulted in attribute soup that almost nobody fully understands,
indicates that something is wrong with its design.


T

-- 
Life is complex. It consists of real and imaginary parts. -- YHL