• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    15 days ago
    1. <> is hard to read for humans

    Not really. <> is unusually pointy among the brackets and comparisons / bitshifts are used in different places than generics are so I’ve never confused them.

    1. <> is hard to parse for compilers

    I guess? Does this meaningfully increase compilation times?

    1. It makes the uses of brackets confusing and inconsistent

    No. A language that uses () for parameter lists, literals and indexing is much more mentally taxing to parse

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Also dropping here the list of contrarian views op listed in the next article:

      Language Design: Popular, but Wrong

      1. static members
      2. properties
      3. <> for generics
      4. [] for arrays
      5. Type ident instead of ident: Type
      6. having if-then-else and switch/case and a ternary operator
      7. having both modifiers and annotations
      8. async/await
      9. separate namespaces for methods and fields
      10. method overloading
      11. namespace declarations doubling as imports
      12. special syntax for casting
      13. using cast syntax for things that are not casts
      14. requiring () for methods without parameters
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        214 days ago

        Yea what is wrong with static members? What do they even mean with “[] for arrays”? Why is that bad? Method overloding is bad? why??

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          I’m assuming static members are bad because globals are bad

          “[] for arrays” is because they want to reserve it for generics once <> is retired

          I think the oveloading thing is about the c/cpp thing where you can define the same function multiple times in the same namespace which yeah sucks imo

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            114 days ago

            I mean in c/c++ statics arent really globals, you cant acess the from outsside their scope can you? They just retain their value or am i wrong?

            [] for arrays is the thing that has been used forever so why should we not use it annymore?

            Overloading is also pretty usefull, overloading class constructors is great. I am not a 40 year experience developer but learning c/c++ i never thought that was so bad.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              114 days ago

              I have no idea about c/c++ statics, does c even have statics? What kind of a scope could statics even have?

              I’m very much novice myself and I never liked the idea of trusting the compiler with figuring out the correct overload and neither do I like not being able to tell which version of a function is being called at a glance. Named constructors ftw

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                314 days ago

                I mean the thing with overloading is that your functions should have some difference in the paraameters they take, if you make 3 functions that have the exact same parameters of course you will not be shure what the compiler does(alötho i dont think that it would compile? But i dont think that i have ever done that)

                If you have a foo(int x float y) and a foo( int x ) function and you call it with just a x as parameter you can be shure the compiler will call your second function. If the compiler for some reasson tried to use the first foo it would throw a error because it wants a int and a float and you just gave it one int.

                I am shure that

                Foo(){ static int x =0;
                X +=1; Printf(“%d”,); }

                Foo(); every time foo is called x increments so print will be 1,2,3,4… for every call of foo

                Printf(“%d”,x); <- wont work because x cant be acessed here, it is out of scope.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                213 days ago

                you can constrain functions with c++20 concepts to ensure the compiler is calling the correct function if you’re that worried

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 days ago

      If you read more than just the headings, you’d find out that your objections have been addressed in the article. ;-)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        I have and they are not addressed, that’s why I commented as such. How would I know that one of the reasons you think <> are hard to read is because they are used as comparison and bitshift or that you intended () to be indexing syntactic sugar if I hadn’t read them? As for the second, I didn’t think how different languages managed to parse them matters as long as it doesn’t impact compilation times significantly, hence my comment.