On 5/31/12 2:12 AM, foobar wrote:
On Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 08:01:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/30/12 11:47 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-30 21:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I see how these can be annoying, but they're not the result of us not
designing things. We designed things best we could.
I would say it's not good enough. The whole approach of designing the
language is wrong.
I understand how frustrating this is. In fact even the way you
consider "good" is not nearly good enough. What we need is really more
formalization of the language design, something that we're sorely
missing. I am sometimes frustrated out of my mind at the lack of rigor
and discipline in the process. On the other hand, we march with the
troops we have.
Andrei
Please no. This is how C++ is designed and we all know how fucked up
that is.
Not at all. This is either a misunderstanding, or you lack the faintest
idea about the history of C++.
Writing a [rigorous] spec is almost always incorrect since requirements
change and unforeseen things come about. Jacob's post illustrates this
when the spec is written [in TDPL] before implementing, testing and
integrating it.
By making a rigorous spec you exacerbate the problem - it takes more
time to write such a spec thus making the time-frame for unforeseen
changes larger.
No.
Andrei
