Nick Sabalausky schrieb:
"so" <s...@so.do> wrote in message news:op.vlv3iukp7dt...@so-pc...
There's no usage of an undeclared variable, but the right-hand-side of
the
second line uses 'i' before *the programmer* initializes it. Yes, the D
compiler chooses to automatically initialize it, but by doing so it
silently
creates a bug every time the programmer intends 'i' to start out as
anything
other than 0. And it's not easily noticed since 0 is a commonly-used
value.
(Something like 0xDEADBEEF would at least be an improvement (albeit a
small
one) since at least that would stand out more and likely fail more
spectacularly.)
So you want language force you to type either "int x=0;" or "int x=void;".
Fair enough and i agree it "might" be a bit better. But you are making it
as it is something so much important.
I tend to get a bit fired up by it because Walter's reasoning on it being
*better* to automatically assume some init value baffles me.
It gives deterministic results/errors.
For example, when your code works when an int is initialized with 0 (but you
didn't initialize it), it may work most of the time in C and fail randomly. In D
it will always work. Same thing the other way round.
Or if you do some calculation with an uninitialized int value.. I guess 0 is one
of the easiest values to spot: on multiplication it creates 0 and on addition it
doesn't change to value so by looking at the unwanted result of a calculation
you probably can see the error more easily than on some other value (or even a
random value, that may create results that look about right).
