Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, that's a good example of why I've grown a distaste towards
hard-and-fast religious design strategies. The designer inevitably
comes across cases where it just doesn't work particularly well, and
then they're forced to either stay true to their misguided principles
by accepting an awkward problematic design, or contradict their
alleged principles and go with a better design. And when they do the
latter, that runs the risk of causing problems in other areas that had
been relying on the old principle being rigidly followed.
D has design principles, but those principles are often contradictory. I
don't see a good reason to follow a design principle out of principle if
it destroys the utility of the language.
Me feels that many readers of this ng would enjoy a recap of just
exactly are those design principles? Of more interest though will be
the ensuring discussion from your response!!! :-)
