On 4/17/22 17:35, Ali Çehreli wrote:

> compared to C++, the amount of constructor, destructor, copy
> constructor, etc. that I do *not* write in D is very liberating to me.
> It feels like I just write what is needed and it mostly just works.

The following is a quick and dirty grep-based stats from a largish successful project that implements multiple libraries and binaries. The figures are numbers of times each construct appears in source code:

               struct: 231
            interface:   3
                class:  12
                union:   0

      this(/* ... */):  72 [1]
 shared static this():   8
        static this():   1 [2]

shared static ~this():   0
       static ~this():   0
              ~this():   8

           this(this):   0 [3]

[1] Most operations in most constructors are trivial assignments to members.

[2] It contains just an enforce expression to ensure the environment is as expected. (It is an oversight that this is not a 'shared static this' as well.)

[3] There are no copy constructors either because the project started with an older compiler.

It is remarkable that I did not implement a single copy or move behavior ever. Compare that to countless C++ articles on attempting to teach how to deal with fundamental operations of object. Forgotten to be called or not, there are no 'move' (which does not move in C++) or 'forward' (which does not forward in C++) expressions at all.

What a price the programming community keeps on paying just because their powerful programming language was there first...

Ali

On 4/18/22 09:17, Ali Çehreli wrote:

> shared static ~this():   0
>         static ~this():   0
>                ~this():   8

Apologies for omitting 'scope' statements:

   scope(exit): 34
scope(success):  6
scope(failure):  8

Ali