| |
| Posted by jmh530 in reply to Max Samukha | PermalinkReply |
|
jmh530
Posted in reply to Max Samukha
| On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 07:24:03 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 19:05:38 UTC, Don Allen wrote:
>>
>> I couldn't agree more with this. I've made it clear that I've done some very successful work with D and have been very pleased with the outcome. But this work involved porting C code I wrote 10 years ago that had become ugly (or maybe it always was) and difficult to maintain. The D version is a big improvement.
>
> Removing the binary literals does not mean reduction in complexity, neither in the compiler, nor in the user code.
There are multiple ways that complexity has been used on this thread, which I think contributed to a lot of disagreements. It might be better in the future if people make clear whether they refer to compiler-complexity or user-complexity (or call it developer-complexity, same idea).
I don't have the knowledge to comment on how they impact compiler-complexity.
I think most people would agree that removing binary literals would not meaningfully reduce user-complexity. I haven't heard of a new D programmer struggling with understanding about how binary literals interact with some other feature in a complex way. They aren't that frequently used, but people can look up how they work if you need them. However, there's also an asymmetry. The more a user makes use of them, the larger the potential cost to them for the removal. So, even if there is a minor reduction of user-complexity, the people who make use of them face a larger cost. I think this is what frustrates some on the thread.
I would echo the comments of others about the importance of automated tools to reduce the burden on users of these kinds of changes. I don't recall anyone mentioning the removal of complex/imaginary numbers, but the issues are the same.
|