I think the article suffers a bit from not being up to date in regard to the work Java has done with virtual threads.
There quite a few assumptions being made in the article that would not have been questioned a few years ago, but now these assumptions feel quite unfounded and all the conclusions based on them stand on shaky ground.
Some functions also don’t have any parentheses, like field access or infix operators.
You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.
I’m kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?
We could follow this line of thinking further …
No we don’t. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion … then you have no point.
Thankfully, registration fees do not differ by length of the domain. (As it should be.)
It cost a larger 3 digit amount of currency to buy it, though. (Which was fine for me.)
Packages are usually provided by distribution packagers, not by the developers of the code itself.
This submission reminded me that I also had some articles on this topic that people may find interesting.
That’s still a workaround to try and keep a completely artificial distinction alive.
Even if I didn’t need [] for types, I still wouldn’t want “some functions use (), some functions use []” as a language rule.
Oh, good idea … any preference on the first? :-)
I have some articles on naming specific areas of program code that people might find helpful:
Wasting a perfectly good pair of brackets on some random function call and then suffering for it in many other places sounds more like syntactic salt.
What’s a form of access but a function from some index type to some element type?
Happily using it for presentation slides.
If you read more than just the headings, you’d find out that your objections have been addressed in the article. ;-)
Sure, there are some worse/more limited predecessors – my design was partially motivated by a desire to improve upon these.
For instance, that ML-derivative you are using for your examples
if then else in the language, thus making it not unifiedmatch is very limited in which coding patterns it can express
Also, none of the examples are “more clear” or “have less magic”:
Maybe they are more “familiar” to you personally, but that’s about it.
Too me they just look clunky, full of accidental complexity and trying to work around a poor/limited language design.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That –at best– gives you the same performance.
EDIT: Ok, I misunderstood – you meant the performance of “case insensitive in kernel” vs. “case insensitive in userspace”. I get your point now.
No, I’m not going to waste further time on trying to make you understand things you are not capable or interested in understanding.
The author of that paper hung around in the lang design forum were I originally presented this.
The main difference between C++ and D was that (for most of the time in the past) D required garbage collector.
So, D was a language with similar Algol-style syntax targeting a completely different niche from C++.
Trying to correct your quote, it should read something like “I’m not going to switch because I can’t technically do all that stuff in D that I’m doing in C++” for it to make any sense.