On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 12:46:49 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
I'm absolutely against this DIP.
This proposal is just going back to the hell of header files
again. Why on earth would you emulate C/C++ when D was supposed
to be designed taking into account lessons learned from them.
This is unnecessary complexity added for the sake of a few
programmers who can't get out of C++ mode. I think you need to
have a good hard think about *why* header files were introduced
into those early languages and then consider if that reason is
still valid. Personally i don't think it is. Java and C# do
just fine without this.
Seriously, this goes against everything you learn as a
programmer, nothing should ever be typed twice and then to say
that the declaration and implementation could be different just
boggles my mind?!?! Great more work!
If implemented, i will never used this feature and i will never
deal with code that uses it either. I choose D *purely* because
it didn't have this header file nonsense. If i find in future i
start seeing more and more of this style of D code i would just
move on to use something else that doesn't have all this extra
baggage and work associated with it. Just because Manu brings
it up randomly you decide to create a DIP?
In reality this is a documentation issue. Which has already
been addressed by DDOC or *.di files. If data exists in one
form, and it is needed in another, that's work a computer
should do. Not a human! IDE's also give you numerous tools to
get class overviews and such. If you are suggesting that you
also need these class overviews in code to be viewed on github
etc, just use comments. They are as arbitrary and simpler to
implement.
Honestly this DIP is going backwards, i was under the
impression D was going forwards! I am so disappointed.
I totally agree (stating this just in case number of votes
matters).
