On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:50:26PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > On 3/8/2013 5:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: > >On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote: > >> Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention > >>in > >>D? > > > >Well, the two guys with an alternative proposal (concepts-lite) seem > >to hate static if (along with a third guy). > > > >There seems to be a lot of strawman arguments in this paper. > > Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive > experience with static if in D.
I didn't read the paper, but I have to say that static if in D has been extremely, extremely useful in my code. Now that I've become acquianted with it, I can't live without it. It's pretty much a necessity when writing heavily-templated code. But given C++'s broken template design, I can see why its value may not have been appreciated by some people. D may still have its warts, but in terms of being a "better C++", I think it has done a superb job, especially in the area of templates and compile-time mechanisms. Static if + CTFE + sane template syntax = readable template code = total win for D over C++. T -- Long, long ago, the ancient Chinese invented a device that lets them see through walls. It was called the "window".
