| |
| Posted by max haughton in reply to deadalnix | PermalinkReply |
|
max haughton
Posted in reply to deadalnix
| On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 22:01:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 13:07:10 UTC, Alexandru Ermicioi wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 00:21:48 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
> However, you are wrong at expecting an impact for D by improving OOP, nope, D needs to improve the non-OOP story, more OOP is repulsive, specially for system languages
Thats one extremely biased view on D use. OOP is useful for application development (irrelevant of your feelings), and D is also used for app development.
Indeed, if the basics such as OOP are not implemented right, pilling up more and more on top of it is not going to help. Solid foundations matter. OOP is just a basic feature of modern programing languages and widely used in the industry.
Also worth adding that there is a difference between the midwit bullshit enterprise OOP, the modern synthesis OOP one might read in a book, and merely classes.
Improvements to the latter should be a free win, other than ABI breakage.
One of the reasons why I think we need to massively reduce the surface of the D toolchain is that if we don't we massively increase the activation energy to actually implement these changes — hand waving using Arrhenius/Boltzmann, T ~ O(\exp(E_a)), doesn't scale well.
|