Walter Bright wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Again, C won't keep you from shooting yourself in the foot.
Right, it won't. A good systems language should do what it can to
prevent the programmer from *inadvertently* shooting himself in the
foot, while allowing him to *deliberately* shoot himself in the foot.
No, a good systems language should do exactly what it's told. Supporting
tools should tell the programmer if he's risking shooting himself in the
foot.
You can tell C compilers to
check all array accesses, but that is a performance issue.
Runtime checking of arrays in D is a performance issue too, so it is
selectable via a command line switch.
Same as in C then.
But more importantly,
2) For dynamically sized arrays, the dimension of the array is carried
with the array, so loops automatically loop the correct number of times.
No runtime check is necessary, and it's easier for the code reviewer to
visually check the code for correctness.
But this introduces handy but, strictly speaking, unnecessary overhead as
well, meaning, in short; 'D is slower than C, but easier to write code in'.
So in essence, it's a bit like Python, but a teensy bit faster and a lot
easier to shoot yourself in the foot with.
What was the niche you were going for when you thought up D? It can't have
been systems programming, because *any* extra baggage is baggage one would
like to get rid of. If it was application programming I fail to see how one
more language would help, as there will be portability problems galore and
it's still considerably slower to develop in than fe Python, while at the
same time being considerably easier to mess up in.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
