On 03/10/2010 09:12 AM, retard wrote:
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:53:57 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 03/10/2010 04:38 AM, retard wrote:
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:05:03 +0000, retard wrote:
This is so unbelievable. I knew the property stuff was being
redesigned since there was so much talk in the ng some time ago. But
even now, why on earth doesn't it work like it should. Is it so hard
to copy/steal the good ideas from the better languages. Guess how
C#/Scala solved this - I bet having a PhD helps getting things right
the first time..
Heh, after noticing the thread name "D hates to be dynamic linked" I
should have probably renamed this thread with a funnier name such as "D
stubbornly refuses to learn from mistakes and follow the principles of
good language design".
It took C# 4 years to get properties right. That period also included
finishing a complete language specification document, totalling almost
500 pages. The property feature wasn't present in Pizza (2002), but
Scala (2004 ->) had it. It was taken D 11 years to fail again and again
miserably.
I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to convey.
Andrei
People very rarely find any issues worth complaining in the property
system implementations of those languages. I also forgot to mention
Object Pascal. Does this mean that C#/Scala/Pascal users are just
complaining less or are their property systems just better? When a new
system is adopted by D, does anyone really analyze the large body of
existing work done on the field. We don't live in a dark and closed
barrel, we can learn from others and try to avoid common problems.
Absolutely. A good way to go about that is to raise the issue herein and
in bugzilla and also at best contribute patches that implement the
improvements.
There are some ways to go about improving things that are scraping the
bottoms of some dubious barrels, and almost guaranteed to do more harm
than good (primarily by making the perpetrator look like a fool).
Latching on an obvious troll to make a point comes to mind. Also, I have
difficulty understanding the concept of attempting to make Walter bad
for not having a PhD, while at the same time relying on anonymity to
cover insecurity about one's own achievements. One other thing that
comes to mind is oscillating between being reasonable, then insulting,
then apologetic, and then rinse lather and repeat. The logic is
difficult to follow. Why bother apologizing if reenactment is a given?
Getting to the topic at hand, there are two sides to the coin. D got
right several things that other language authors are still scratching
their heads about, such as proper integration of immutability with
mutability, an expressive generics system, lightweight concepts,
integration of interpretation with compilation, value range propagation
in integral expressions, and I dare say concurrency. (I remember an
interview with Hejlsberg and a colleague (Bentley?) in which he said
they're having major headaches about modeling immutable data.) That
doesn't make the authors of those languages incult or boneheaded. A
language is a large ecosystem that makes it rather difficult to choose
what to get busy with at any given time.
Generalizing from one awkwardness (I agree that properties could receive
more attention) to the entire language and even the author is not
something anyone should be proud of.
Andrei
