On 04/10/2014 09:39, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/1/2014 6:17 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Walter, you do understand that not all software has to be robust -
Yes, I understand that.
in the critical systems sense - to be quality software? And that in
fact, the majority
of software is not critical systems software?...
I was under the impression that D was meant to be a general purpose
language,
not a language just for critical systems. Yet, on language design
issues, you
keep making a series or arguments and points that apply *only* to
critical
systems software.
If someone writes non-robust software, D allows them to do that.
However, I won't leave unchallenged attempts to pass such stuff off as
robust.
Nor will I accept such practices in Phobos, because, as this thread
clearly shows, there are a lot of misunderstandings about what robust
software is. Phobos needs to CLEARLY default towards solid, robust
practice.
It's really too bad that I've never seen any engineering courses on
reliability.
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/safe-systems-from-unreliable-parts/228701716
Well, I set myself a trap to get that response...
Of course, I too want my software to be robust! I doubt that anyone
would disagree that Phobos should be designed to be as robust as
possible. But "robust" is too general of a term to be precise here, so
this belies my original point.
I did say robust-in-the-critical-systems-sense... What I was questioning
was whether D and Phobos should be designed in a way that took critical
systems software as its main use, and relegate the other kinds of
software to secondary importance.
(Note: I don't think such dichotomy and compromise *has* to exist in
order to design a great D and Phobos. But in this discussion I feel the
choices and vision were heading in a way that would likely harm the
development of general purpose software in favor of critical systems.)
--
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
