On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 11:05:25 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:52:47 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
compile-time, makes
code self-documenting and doesn't let me worry about
performance.
...
Why just obvious bugs?
Hehe. Sure - let the compiler catch *all* my bugs!
scope, const, immutable, pure, nothrow, safe, ... D makes it
harder to shoot yourself in the foot, but you are aiming at
your foot by default..
Too bad I have to add a lot of annotations
void f(Class i) {}
to
void f(in Class i) const pure nothrow @safe {}
I would rather have to write
void f(@(mutable, escapes) Class i) @(impure mutable throws
unsafe) {}
If @mutable and @impure existed, I could just add some
annotations at the top of each module, but it wouldn't help on
parameters.
The problem, which I know well from other languages with
annotations, is that eventually you reach annotation hell,
specially in the enterprise world.
I don't have any enterprise experience, but with UDAs, this can
already happen.
What I think is bad is that I have to add a lot of built-in
annotations to get help from the compiler catching bugs.
But there would be fewer annotations if you were able to negate
some annotations.
If 95% of your functions are pure, why should you have to say
pure for all those rather than impure for 5%?
