On 8/14/2012 3:31 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
Then you get the best of both worlds:
1. You force the programmer to manually initialize the variable in most cases,
forcing him to think about the default value. It's almost no trouble for
2. In the cases where it's not possible, the language helps the programmer catch
bugs.
Why the heck D avoids #1, I have no idea.
As I've explained before, user defined types have "default constructors". If
builtin types do not, then you've got a barrier to writing generic code.
Default initialization also applies to static arrays, tuples, structs and
dynamic allocation. It seems a large inconsistency to complain about them only
for local variables of basic types, and not for any aggregate type or user
defined type.
It's one of the _major_ features of C# and Java that help promote correctness,
and #1 looks orthogonal to #2 to me.
I know Java doesn't have default construction - does C#?
As for the 'rarity' of the error I mentioned, yes, it is unusual. The trouble is
when it creeps unexpectedly into otherwise working code that has been working
for a long time.
