On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:32:03 +0200 "David Piepgrass" <qwertie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suspect that you have a C++ background. If this is not > > accurate, ignore the rest. But if it is accurate, my plea to > > you is: Learn other languages. C++ has next to no innovative > > language features (even C++11's take on lambdas is an > > abomination) and encourages defensive programming to the point > > where it's ridiculous (I mean, no default initialization of > > variables? In 2012?). > > Actually, C# has no default initialization* of local variables, > and I love it. Instead, it is a compile-time error to read a > variable if the compiler cannot guarantee that you have > initialized it. IMO this is much better than D's "let's > initialize doubles to NaN so that something fishy will happen at > runtime if you forget to initialize it" :) > > * technically the compiler asks the runtime to bitwise 0-fill > everything, but that's just an implementation detail required for > the .NET verifier, and the optimizer can ignore the request to > preinitialize. I've always wished D worked that way, too.