Yigal Chripun wrote: > On 18/12/2009 02:49, Tim Matthews wrote: >> In a reddit reply: "The concept of templates in D is exactly the same as >> in C++. There are minor technical differences, syntactic differences, >> but it is essentially the same thing. I think that's understandable >> since Digital Mars had a C++ compiler." >> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/af511/ada_programming_generics/c0hcb04?context=3 >> >> >> I have never touched ada but I doubt it is really has that much that >> can't be done in D. I thought most (if not all) the problems with C++ >> were absent in D as this summary of the most common ones points out >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/templates-revisited.html. >> >> Your thoughts? > > I don't know Ada but I do agree with that reddit reply about c++ and D > templates. D provides a better implementation of the exact same design, > so it does fix many minor issues (implementation bugs). An example of > this is the foo<bar<Class>> construct that doesn't work because of the > ">>" operator. > However, using the same design obviously doesn't solve any of the deeper > design problems and this design has many of those. An example of that is > that templates are compiled as part of the client code. This forces a > library writer to provide the source code (which might not be acceptable > in commercial circumstances) but even more frustrating is the fact that > template compilation bugs will also happen at the client.
Well yes, but the .NET design restrict the generic type to a specific named interface in order to do type checking. You may find this a good design choice, but others find it far more frustrating because this is exactly what allows for a bit more flexibility in a statically typed world. So it is not exactly a problem but rather a trade-off imho.
