On 12/30/2014 1:27 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
In general, I get the impression from both DIP25 and DIP69 that both are motivated by minimizing the change to the existing language, instead of looking for the most powerful solution (that may have other use-cases besides the ones under consideration). I.e., instead of asking which concepts are behind the problem in question, how these concepts could be expressed in an ideal world, and then making compromises to fit them into D, it seems like we're starting with some premises (as few changes as possible, no type modifiers), and then look for a solution that needs to sacrifice the smallest number of use cases to stay within the constraints. This is particularly bad if our premises are going against the nature of the problem we want to solve, because then we are guaranteed to get a bad solution.
On the other hand, power just because we can add it is not always a good thing. C macros are very powerful, but experience has shown it is the wrong kind of power. Also, programmers do not really want a complex annotation system. They want to just write code in the most obvious manner and have it work correctly. Having a powerful (but complex) system is not very attractive.
