On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 15:56:17 +0000, eles wrote:

> Propensity for bike-shedding behind the covers of intellectual refinement puzzles me.

this is part of "be smart!" strategy. anyone who is not smart enough doesn't deserve the right to use D. and "being smart" means "manually do the work that compiler can automate".

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:31:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/1/15 1:54 AM, eles wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:


> I know it's impossible to please everyone and I'm not sure how

But that everyone is many. Have a look, please, at the comments made on github for exactly that pull request. Almost all involved seemed to be happy with it (Hara, Andrej, Martin -- sorry for citing names, I don't usually do that), even Walter and you.

Some even hinted that they awaited this for long.

BTW, the original request was filled in 2006. That makes it for 9 years. For a simple feature.

9 years...

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 16:09:24 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:31:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/1/15 1:54 AM, eles wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:
>
>
>> I know it's impossible to please everyone and I'm not sure how
>
> But that everyone is many. Have a look, please, at the comments made on github for exactly that pull request. Almost all involved seemed to be happy with it (Hara, Andrej, Martin --

+ bearophile

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:41:38 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 10:00:38 UTC, uri wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>

> Because static arrays are not convenient enough to use, I'll have to use another language that does not even provide static arrays. Makes sense.

But they provide other things. Despite what some seem to assume, regular people are not martyrs looking for the D sword to let themselves fall onto.

There are many others appealing swords out there.

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 16:09:24 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:31:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/1/15 1:54 AM, eles wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:

> 9 years...

And, for what it matters, 9 years of *indecision*.

It wasn't a good or bad decision. It was "it might be a better way". Well, after 9 years, there is still no better way in sight and, still, the brink of another non-decision is glooming that fast.

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 16:09:02 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 15:56:17 +0000, eles wrote:

> this is part of "be smart!" strategy. anyone who is not smart enough
> doesn't deserve the right to use D. and "being smart" means "manually do
> the work that compiler can automate".

Well, at least, halving the user base has the definite advantage that it halves the complains too.

On 2/1/15 8:24 AM, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 16:09:24 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:31:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 2/1/15 1:54 AM, eles wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:
>
>> 9 years...
>
> And, for what it matters, 9 years of *indecision*.
>
> It wasn't a good or bad decision. It was "it might be a better way".
> Well, after 9 years, there is still no better way in sight and, still,
> the brink of another non-decision is glooming that fast.

I agree indecision is bad. -- Andrei

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:41:38 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> Because static arrays are not convenient enough to use, I'll have to use another language that does not even provide static arrays. Makes sense.

Kind of OT, but can we drop this static/dynamic/associative array thing ? array/lice/maps seems more appropriate, unless we want to confuse everybody.

On 2/1/15, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:41:38 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
>> Because static arrays are not convenient enough to use, I'll have to use another language that does not even provide static arrays. Makes sense.
>
> Kind of OT, but can we drop this static/dynamic/associative array thing ? array/lice/maps seems more appropriate, unless we want to confuse everybody.

Let's call static arrays fixed-size arrays IMO.

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:36:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/1/15 2:00 AM, uri wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:46:45 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whatever, anyway.
>>>
>>> Translation of that being:
>>>
>>> "Boring pedestrian issues like simple string logging are bikeshedded
>>> for YEARS, yet PhD-level esoteric stuff makes it into phobos with
>>> relative ease."
>>>
>>> https://github.com/klamonte/cycle/blob/master/docs/no_more_d.md
>>>
>>> cautios and determination, isn't? or, revolutionary and conservative,
>>> how I did put it...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> At least decisions are finally being made on several fronts recently
>> though.
>>
>> W.r.t this feature, I was personally looking forward to it ... guess
>> I'll stick with the Octave/R/Python "troika" for rapid protoyping
>> numerical analysis code.
>
> Which feature are you referring to? -- Andrei

int[$] a=[1,2,3];

The syntax sugar helps when prototyping ideas, which is why R and Octave (MATLAB) are so useful. I have reservations about this:

auto a=[1,2,3].s

Because the type is hidden from the programmer... For my use case (prototyping code) it's a don't care but in production code it might be a problem, as others have pointed out already. I actually use this trick already in my own code for malloc'd arrays to avoid the GC and add sugar to toStringz.

All in all it is great to see some decisions been made. I think it will help shut down bike shedding and get D moving forward at a faster rate.

Cheers uri