On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:15:45 -0800, Robert Schadek <realbur...@gmx.de>
wrote:
On 01/24/2013 10:56 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:54:09 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 1/24/13 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:41 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 1/24/13 3:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:51:32 -0500
Andrei Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
No, you merely came up with *some* specific cherry-picked examples
that
sparked *some* debate (with most of the disagreing coming from
you).
I simply mentioned three reasons that came to mind.
Andrei
While I don't approve of Mr. Sabalausky's tone or attitude, the crux
of
his argument is logically sound. The problem with @property isn't
@property, it's D's insistence on optional parens. If paren usage was
clearly defined then this would be a non-issue. I would like to point
out that I can't think of another systems/general purpose language
that
has an calling syntax specification as vague and convoluted as D's.
C#'s
is brutally simple. Java's is brutally simple. In C/C++ everything is
a
function or field, so, brutally simple.
Make D's calling syntax simpler, end optional parens!
Simplicity is clearly good, but there's something to be said about
those warts in chained calls. The UFCS-enabled idioms clearly bring a
strong argument to the table, there's no ignoring it.
Andrei
Then @property needs to be fixed such that optional parens don't effect
it one way or the other. Removing the concept of properties and making
functions that look like properties through optional parens is a very
poor (and lazy) solution. As Mr. Ruppe pointed out, properties are
DATA, and functions do stuff. That statement alone is an excellent
argument for clearly delineating which is which... Properties are not
functions.
At while you're at it, just get ride of:
int[] a.
a.length = 10;
That this grows the array stills creeps me out.
Robert
Well, from a syntax standpoint it's legitimate, and D's dynamic arrays are
something I prefer over C#'s less flexible solution. My main problem with
using it is that D's GC is absurdly naive. When this seemingly benign
action causes your program to freeze for non-trivial fractions of a second
for the millionth time, it can be quite despair inducing...
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
