• Manipulator (8/8) Jun 29 2012 http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF0LH5GvQI3u9c36oAAzWXQ/videos
• Timon Gehr (16/22) Jun 29 2012 That is quite obvious from Crockford's talk alone:

"Manipulator" <volcz kth.se> writes:

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF0LH5GvQI3u9c36oAAzWXQ/videos

Just watched these videos with Douglas Crockford and thought that 
he made some very good points.

Why we still design languages that invite bad styles?

I feel that many people in the D community is the exhibitionist 
type of person. Let's stop!

Best regards,
Manipulator

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 06/29/2012 09:13 AM, Manipulator wrote:
 http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF0LH5GvQI3u9c36oAAzWXQ/videos

 Just watched these videos with Douglas Crockford and thought that he
 made some very good points.

 Why we still design languages that invite bad styles?

That is quite obvious from Crockford's talk alone:
Because that kind of language is popular.

 I feel that many people in the D community is the exhibitionist type of
 person. Let's stop!

I'd have to disagree with this statement, because of the following facts:

1. There is no formal language specification.
2. There are fewer unexpected edge cases, because the language is
    better designed than JS.
3. The compiler does not implement them correctly, and abusing bugs is
    likely to result in code that changes its behaviour or becomes
    illegal.

Because of 1, nobody can study the language specification, because of
2 and 3, finding unexpected edge cases is unproductive (you are more
likely to segfault the compiler than to find exploitable behaviour), and 
because of 1 and 3, found edge cases are hard to successfully
leverage into bad style D code.

D/DMD in its current state does not support exhibitionism!