On 11/11/2010 15:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/11/10 6:30 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 17/10/2010 20:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/17/2010 01:09 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/16/2010 04:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It's a subset of duck typing. I don't think calling a function that
supports a limited form of duck typing "duck" is a lie.
I'm sure if it was on a Go slide you would.
Probably not in as strong terms, but if you want to point out that I'm
biased... what can I do? I'm a simple man.
Andrei
When I first heard you say you were biased (in the Google Talk), I
thought you were being facetious, or just exaggerating.
I'm not so sure anymore, and I hope that is not the case. Because, as
I'm sure you must realize, being biased for D will only result in an
outcome of mild to severe annoyance and loss of credibility from:
* people biased for languages which are perceived to be competitors to D
(like Go).
* people who are (or strive to be) unbiased.
And given who you are (one of the designers of D), this outcome will
apply not just to yourself, but D as well, which obviously is not a good
thing.
I think I ascribe a milder meaning than you to "bias". It's in human
nature to have preferences, and it's self-evident that I'm biased in
favor of various facets of D's approach to computing. A completely
unbiased person would have a hard time working on anything creative.
Andrei
I don't think the bias above is just a case of preferences of one thing
over the other. Having preferences is perfectly fine, as in "I prefer
this approach", or even "I think this approach is more effective than
that one".
Another thing is to describe reality in inaccurate terms ("I think
approach A has property Z", when it doesn't), and/or to have a double
standard when describing or analyzing something else.
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
