Weed пишет: > Andrei Alexandrescu пишет: >> Weed wrote: >> [about structs vs. classes] >>> It is very a pity. >>> My small opinion: it is impossible to reduce performance for struggle >>> against potential errors - such languages already are, it more >>> high-level. It how to refuse pointers because they are dangerous, >>> difficult for beginners and without them it is possible to make any >>> algorithm. >> It's attractive to deal in absolutes, but also dangerous. When C came >> about, naysayers complained that it was consistently 30% slower than >> assembler, and generated larger code by an even higher margin. Then, >> some asked, what would you choose, one OS that's cool because it's >> written in C, or one that's one third faster? and so on. What people >> have forgotten by now is that C *was* high level. And it *did* incur a >> performance hit. It also had desirable properties that overcame that hit. >> > > Can in C# (it uses as far as I know too such sharing) such approach and > it is justified - microsoft accelerates replacement of hardware for new > OS. :) But we after all not blindly copy C#? > > After all this problem can be solved, IMHO. > I suggest to make so: > > 1. To leave structures in that kind in which they is (POD) > > 2. To permit classes declaration such what they in C++ > > 3. To permit transfer the classes on value (for compulsory pass by > reference and for declaration through "new" now we have "ref" keyword) > > 3. To check slicing during compilation. It is possible?
For example prohibit assigning on value to the types, not being base or this type > > 4. "scope" for classes to deprecate as superfluous > > > In that case there will be problems? > > >>> What is D? >>> D is a general purpose systems and applications programming language. It >>> is a higher level language than C++, but *retains* the ability to write >>> high performance code and interface directly with the operating system >>> API's and with hardware. >>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/overview.html >> Probably the worst thing that could happen to that description is it >> Kafka-esquely morphing into a dogma. > > Seriously, I trusted it
