hasen wrote: > Walter Bright wrote: >> grauzone wrote: >>> I didn't mean going back to programming with locks. Instead you could >>> use the new ideas without extending the type system. As far as I >>> understand, the language extensions are only needed for verification >>> (so far). >> >> Without verification, it's programming by hopeful convention. If you >> want a reliable system, you need more than hope <g>. > > Well .. if you think about OOP and private/public .. > > Dynamic languages like python and smalltalk don't enforce > private/public, and that never was a problem. And, smalltalk is *the* OO > language (AFAIK) > > (this is not really an argument against const per se, it's just an > argument against an argument for const)
If you have a dynamic language you have a different way of programming. In D when I make a typo, the compiler catches it. When I do the same in Ruby, I have a unit test that spits out a method missing exception with a trace. Suppose D doesn't catch my typo and then my application crashes at runtime without such a trace, that will be a nightmare.