On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
> note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no personal attacks
> here.

It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 08:39 AM, ketmar wrote:
>> note that i didn't said this about OP, in no way. so no personal attacks
>> here.
>
> It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".

i am not responsible for people's assumptions.

On 07/10/2016 11:30 AM, ketmar wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:24:58 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
>> It's no stretch to assume that the one who proposes the feature would
>> make use of it. You called those who would use it "brain-damaged".
>
> i am not responsible for people's assumptions.

So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at brain-dead people", we shouldn't take that for an insult. Because, hey, they couldn't have known that we use it, and there's clearly no reason for them to assume so.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at brain-dead people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.

absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:20:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:05:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> Your joking right? No personal attacks?
>
> where do you see personal attack in my words? i'm not saying that OP is dumb, and i'm not saying that his proposal is dumb. but it is *aimed* to dumb people (which doesn't automatically makes it dumb, you know). and i got tired of being "polite", from now on when i'll see dumb people, i'll say that i see dumb people, not "different" or "mentally impaired".
>
> as for the topic, i *tried* to explain why i see no value in the proposal. and part of the explanation included referring to "brain-damaged coders".
>
> but yeah, this (again) reminded me why i once resigned from NG. i'd probably should do it again, IRC is enough.

Seems like your pretty dumb. You don't capitalize I, which is a basic grammatical rule in the English language. I'm sure you have your dumb logic for it though.

Your real problem is that you are an arrogant prick that seems to think the world revolves around your tiny little pathetic uninteresting life.

You are not god, not the end all be all, not the shit, not even popular or important. Stop trying to pretend you are and actually try to get along with other people, and accept that not every is as smart as you think you are.

Maybe not everyone in the world is a bad ass leet coder as you are, maybe they are a bad ass Tennis player that does coding for fun on the side to expand their understanding of life. What do you do besides code? Are you actually any good at coding BTW? I doubt as good as you think you are.

People like you have a very tiny understanding of reality and it shows. Please grow up, quickly. Your life and everyone around you will benefit.  It's not about how big you think your balls are, how big they actually are, or if there tennis balls... Grow up, act your age(if your not 12, which you probably are, so act like your 30 then), get with the program, and try to help make everyone's life a bit more enjoyable. If you get your panties in a ruff because someone says something that you think is "dumb", enlighten them nicely... after all, you might just be the one needing enlightenment.

On 07/10/2016 12:21 PM, ketmar wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 09:46:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> So when one makes a post here saying that "D is aimed at brain-dead
>> people", we shouldn't take that for an insult.
>
> absolutely. but "D is crap" is whole different story.

Your quote leaves out the "because" part, which is the interesting part.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
> Hi everyone (=
>
> I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure TCO is applied.
>
> The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
>
>
> The proposal it's ready for merge on the new [DIPs repo](https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/6)
>
> --
> Dietrich

I'll chime in to give a counterpoint to the ... I'll say "immature" discussion this generated.

Just my opinion:

Yes, an attribute to express something you expect the compiler to do, has value. (Clearly some people on here don't have experience with a codebase that is maintained by thousands of people).

Even if compilers aren't required to implement TCO, it could work (compilers which didn't, would always give an error if you used the attribute). But it would then feel weird to me to use this attribute, knowing that some compilers would pass it and some would fail it.

And compilers which always fail it, would feel pressure to do better. Whether this is good depends on your outlook. D does think of itself as "multi-paradigm", so maybe it should push on this.

Personally I could see myself making use of this, but not being very sad if it didn't happen.

I do prefer your more verbose proposals over "@tco" - a short abbreviation doesn't feel appropriate.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 10:50:20 UTC, "Smoke" Adams wrote:
> You are not
i am.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 11:17:17 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> Your quote leaves out the "because" part, which is the interesting part.

because it is irrelevant.

Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a "tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed the optimization as the compiler's business and not something he'd elevate to a language feature:


http://forum.dlang.org/post/lqp6pu$1kkv$1@digitalmars.com