On Monday, 10 August 2015 at 18:23:25 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
The main technical reason was CT reflections issues (the
particular case was that they had always been erroneously
recognized as input ranges) and the fact that any API change
involving the Json struct would potentially be a silently
breaking change. Another thing that I personally always felt
was that the syntax had the effect of unconsciously hiding
bugs, because it *looks* like static field access, so your
brain thinks that the compiler checks for things like spelling
mistakes.
Aye, good points.
Ideally, I'd love to see statically defined structs for
everything with easy to/from serialization. The serialization
part is easy - the trickier part is getting the right struct
definition.
I started working on an analyzer thing that takes a real world
data sample and creates a struct from it. Actually, my main
reason for doing that was reverse engineering a third party API -
reading a struct definition is easier than reading json IMO - but
it'd have nice benefits for these too.
Most "dynamic" types really are static, you just don't always
know the layout at compile time. But with a bit of ahead-of-time
analyzers of the data, we can basically bridge that without
needing a whole lot of extra work.
