On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:45:09 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:25:32 UTC, aberba wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan
Marler wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
Then D isn't the right choice for you.
I think it makes for a better community if we can be more
welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to
criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential
with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it,
after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to
provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take
issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax. I'm sure
everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but
that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should
respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than
dismissal.
That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear
decision to make things consistent.
Yeah there's been alot of discussion around it over the years,
which is why I put this together about 4 years ago:
https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Function_attributes
Gosh I've forgotten how long I've been using D.
Interesting article.
"int safe = 0; // This code would break if "safe" was added as a
keyword"
My question here: why didn't D use a similar solution as C when
dealing with these things? Look at the introduction of the bool
datatype in C99. They created the compiler reserved type "_Bool"
and put "typedef _Bool bool" in "stdbool.h". The people wanting
to use this new feature can include this header, and other can
leave it be. No ugly "@" polluting the language on every line
where it's used. Wouldn't a similar solution have been possible
in D?
