On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:37:27PM +0000, I SCREAM for ICECream via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 18:13:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:16:26 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> >>>On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 19:35:33 UTC, Ice Cream Overload wrote:
> >>>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>Passion or not,
> >>>
> >>>"If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof.  As long as I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad."
> >>>
> >>>That statement shows a lot of arrogance.
> >>>
> >>>It he not really just saying "I have no clue if X is true, but since I don't know, I'll just assume it's false and assume you are wrong.".
> >>>
> >>>That's not very logical. Why wouldn't he just as well assume X is true?
> >>>
> >>>The fact is, he can't and shouldn't make such statements about X if he has no "evidence" about it.
> >>>
> >>>Instead, wouldn't the proper approach be to discuss, learn, and share what one things in a positive way so everyone can learn about X and reach a more intelligent understanding of it?
> >>>
> >>>Hilter was very passionate too, are you saying he was right?
> >>
> >>Since you brought up the Hilter reference, it's useful to mention that he was successful because people blindly followed him and his actions...
> >>
> >>But really...do we always have to resort to Hitler references when discussing disagreements? Seems very cliche.
> >
> >It's only cliche if you aren't interested in the truth. It doesn't matter if I used Hilter or any other person that was "passionate" but wrong.
> >
> >Hilter is just the greatest example and most obvious example. If you actually understand the issue, you would realize it has nothing to do with Hilter.
> 
> I don't know. Whenever someone runs out of arguments and is forced to go on the attack, Hitler seems to be the first insult people reach for. Thus once I see Hitler references pop up, I throw out that individual's credibility.  Solves bandwidth problems of who is worth listening to.
> 
> Some soul searching for you, is I'd refrain from such references as it only hurts your credibility. Not the one you sling it at.

Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls.  The game is now over. Thanks for playing.  You may go home now.  Have a nice day.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


T

-- 
"I'm not childish; I'm just in touch with the child within!" - RL

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:37:27PM +0000, I SCREAM for ICECream via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote:
>> >[...]
>> 
>> I don't know. Whenever someone runs out of arguments and is forced to go on the attack, Hitler seems to be the first insult people reach for. Thus once I see Hitler references pop up, I throw out that individual's credibility.  Solves bandwidth problems of who is worth listening to.
>> 
>> Some soul searching for you, is I'd refrain from such references as it only hurts your credibility. Not the one you sling it at.
>
> Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls.  The game is now over. Thanks for playing.  You may go home now.  Have a nice day.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>
>
> T

Amazingly true :D

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:17:43 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> It's only cliche if you aren't interested in the truth. It doesn't matter if I used Hilter or any other person that was "passionate" but wrong.

You are right, but Andrei and Walter often go into "passionate but wrong" mode too... It's a curse of D and probably will keep it from reaching a mature state. DIP25 is no exception.

In language design it is better to have a small set of features  in the core language that are easy to reason about as a whole. D has many simple features, but the combinatorial explosion is quite high.

For instance, how is DIP25 going to work with coroutines that yield? So you transfer a refererence by "return ref", then what you call yields and the object is destructed. When the coroutine is later resumed the object no longer exists, so you have a memory unsafe situation. So then you have to add the requirement that "return ref" functions cannot call anything that yields... After some time you realize that it is possible to pass in a lambda that can destroy the object. Then you forbid passing in lambdas...

What one should have realized is that if reasoning about correctness isn't obvious then you need proofs. There is no obvious memory safety in D and there are no proofs.

Meaning, you would be better off using a general static analyzer because you get more flexibility and the same level of memory safety.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls.  The game is now over. Thanks for playing.  You may go home now.  Have a nice day.

Neh, Godwin's law only states that as time progresses the probability of invoking "Hitler" as an example increases, but it says nothing about whether the comparison was useful or not.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:00:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 21:46:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Godwin's Law[1] has been invoked, boys and girls.  The game is now over. Thanks for playing.  You may go home now.  Have a nice day.
>
> Neh, Godwin's law only states that as time progresses the probability of invoking "Hitler" as an example increases, but it says nothing about whether the comparison was useful or not.

The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote:
> The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem.

Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems, but we're long past the point where we're frequently adding features. If anything, the typical complaint now is that we're _not_ making changes, even when we've been discussing them (e.g. this very thread was started to ask what the deal with a proposed change is, because it hasn't gone anywhere yet, and it's a change proposed by Walter and Andrei no less).

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote:
>> The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem.
>
> Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems, but we're long past the point where we're frequently adding features. If anything, the typical complaint now is that we're _not_ making changes, even when we've been discussing them (e.g. this very thread was started to ask what the deal with a proposed change is, because it hasn't gone anywhere yet, and it's a change proposed by Walter and Andrei no less).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

C++ also has a 'feature' creep problem.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is.

And as a result advanced c++ analyzers work on lowlevel IR, not at the language level.

That has many consequences, one is time consumption, another is accuracy.

> We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems, but we're long past the point where we're frequently adding features.

More syntax sugar is not problematic. It is what you have left when you factor out everything that is expressible by other mechanisms that matters.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:21:24 UTC, Ice Cream Desserter wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote:
>>> The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem.
>>
>> Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems, but we're long past the point where we're frequently adding features. If anything, the typical complaint now is that we're _not_ making changes, even when we've been discussing them (e.g. this very thread was started to ask what the deal with a proposed change is, because it hasn't gone anywhere yet, and it's a change proposed by Walter and Andrei no less).
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> C++ also has a 'feature' creep problem.

If I may the problem is not that much how feature rich the language is, but how orthogonal these feature are. The less orthogonal they are, the more special cases you get when they interact with each other.

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:20:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 22:10:30 UTC, Ice Cream Madness wrote:
>> The D language, does have a 'feature' creep problem.
>
> Maybe, but at this point, I think that C++ is actually getting features faster than D is. We talk about adding features or tweaking existing features to fix problems, but we're long past the point where we're frequently adding features. If anything, the typical complaint now is that we're _not_ making changes, even when we've been discussing them (e.g. this very thread was started to ask what the deal with a proposed change is, because it hasn't gone anywhere yet, and it's a change proposed by Walter and Andrei no less).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

DIP74 is also just an alternative solution to a problem that has a long history, and nothing is being done about it.