On Monday, 8 January 2024 at 04:00:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

[...]

Now how do you interpret the following Don Allen's sentence: "If your application is cpu-limited but spends most of its time in some library, e.g.,sqlite, or in system-calls, re-writing it in C++ will only help in proportion to the time spent in your own code, which is small by assumption." ?

The information about the time spent in sqlite or in system-calls is trivially obtainable via running a profiler and pretty much everyone knows this. What kind of alternative method of obtaining this information do you imagine Don Allen might have used? There's no need to write angry walls of text about the most elementary things.

On Sunday, 7 January 2024 at 16:43:17 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote:

Do you think that there can't possibly be more than one person in the whole world, who doesn't like the D's private keyword? And that this single person persistently registering under different names is the only possible explanation? Really?

I did mention the private keyword in this forum before. I guess, now I'm starting to understand the reasons why some topics provoke unusually hostile reaction around here.

On Monday, 8 January 2024 at 08:25:08 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote:

There are. But there were a set of users with unusually similar style of writing and argument set, which was easy to spot.

On Monday, 8 January 2024 at 08:25:08 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote:

Here's one example, posted under the name "UmmReally", even admitting that it's off-topic:

There's nothing useful about a post like that. But I'm not just talking about this topic. We used to have trolls waiting for any positive post so that they could add a bunch of fabricated/misleading statements to the thread. They wanted to make it so Google wouldn't return anything positive about D (and they mostly succeeded).

On Monday, 8 January 2024 at 14:34:26 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

I really wish we didn't have to force parentheses in $() if the only thing inside the expression is an alphanumeric variable name.

There's the example of:

enum result = text(
    i"@property bool $(name)() @safe pure nothrow @nogc const {
        return ($(store) & $(maskAllElse)) != 0;
    }
    @property void $(name)(bool v) @safe pure nothrow @nogc {
        if (v) $(store) |= $(maskAllElse);
        else $(store) &= cast(typeof($(store)))(-1-cast(typeof($(store)))$(maskAllElse));
    }\n"
);

But why not take it a step further and allow this:

enum result = text(
    i"@property bool $name() @safe pure nothrow @nogc const {
        return ($store & $maskAllElse) != 0;
    }
    @property void $name(bool v) @safe pure nothrow @nogc {
        if (v) $store |= $maskAllElse;
        else $store &= cast(typeof($store))(-1-cast(typeof($store))$maskAllElse);
    }\n"
);

To me that's more readable then the first example where I have to count the closing parens to figure out where an expression starts and ends.

The $() should just be an escape hatch when you need more complex expressions. For example:

int foo = 2;
int bar = 4;
writeln(i"$foo + $bar is $(foo + bar)");  // 2 + 4 is 6

I haven't read any rationale why parentheses are absolutely required in any of the DIPs I've skimmed through.