On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 22:11:44 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 19:16:05 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
The D community preaches all this safety shit but when it
comes down to it they don't seem to really care(look at the
other responses like like "Hey, C does it" or "Hey, look up
the operator precedence"... as if those responses are
meaningful).
jmh530 points out why you're met with such non-agreement of the
issue. You're not open do discussion of why it is implemented
in the fashion it is. Instead it is an attack on the community
and Walter as though there is no logical reason it is
implemented in the way that it is.
I'm not open to discussion because it is not a discussion. There
is no point. What could would it do to explain the short
commings? You see the responses, the mentality. People think
doing something wrong is valid because it was done. Two wrongs
don't make a right no matter how you justify it. When someone
takes on the task of doing a job and pretends the results to a
community then refuse to accept responsibility for the failure to
do the job properly and perpetuate ignorance(invalid logic that
creates confusing, wastes peoples times, etc) then they deserve
to be criticized, it's a two way street. When they then make up
excuses to try to justify the wrong and turn it in to a right,
they deserved to be attacked. It not just a harmless mistake.
Peoples lives could be a jeopardy, but do they care? Do they
REALLY care? Of course not. They don't see it as a significant
issue. Simply learn how D works exactly and you'll be fine! Of
course, for someone that programs in about 20 different languages
regularly, having logical consistency is important.
It's one thing to say "Well, I made a mistake, lets try to remedy
it the best we can" than to say "Well, too bad, we can't break
backwards compatibility!". People want to perpetuate
insanity(which is what being illogical is).
Sure you can express that it is illogical to have made that
choice, but that requires first know what used to make that
decision.
No, it doesn't logic is not based on circumstances, it's based on
something that is completely independent of us... which is why it
is called logic... because it is something we can all agree on
regardless of our circumstances or environment... it is what math
and hence all science is based on and is the only real thing that
has made steady progress in the world. Illogic is what all the
insanity is based on... what wars are from, and just about
everything else, when you actually spend the time to think about
it, which most people don't.
For example one of the original principles for D was:
If it looks like C it should have the same semantics or be a
compiler error (note this was not completely achieved)
Now if we look at other languages we see, they implement it the
same as C or they don't implement it at all. Just based on this
it would make sense to choose to implement it like C if it is
desired to have.
The suggestion I made fulfills this, but it also slightly
defeats one purpose of the operator, being terse.
We also now need to keep backwards compatibility, this fails.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the point of
reimplementing C exactly as C is done? There is already a C, why
have two? Was the whole point of D not to improve upon C? Doesn't
D claim to be a "better C"? So, if you are claiming that the
choice for the ternary operator's issue of ambiguity was to be
consistent with C then that directly contradicts the statements
that D is suppose to be safer and better. I'm fine with this AS
long as it is clearly stated as such and people don't try to
justify or pretend that it is a good thing, which is exactly the
opposite of what they. Most are followers of the cult and cannot
make any rational decision on their own but simply parrot the
elders. So, when they do that, I have no desire or reason to be
logical with them(again, it takes two to tango).
For example, you have been rational, so I will be rational with
you. To be rational, you must argue logically which you have
done. Even though you haven't really argued the issue(of course,
I didn't state it clear on purpose because this isn't really a
discussion thread... I knew that the trolls/cult members would
spew there stupid shit so I was just trolling them. Of course, I
always hope that there would be some light in the tunnel, which
you provided a glimmer... still all meaningless, nothing will
change, at least not with the cult members, but someone that is
not so brainwashed might be semi-enlightened if they implement
their own language and not make the same mistakes).
e.g., my attack is on the claims that D attempts to be *safe* and
a *better C* and yet this(the ternary if) is just another
instance of them contradicting themselves. Presenting something
as safer when it is not gives the perception of safety and can
actually be more dangerous than the original.
