Comment by p1necone
12 hours ago
Just requiring explicit assignment before first use feels like the superior approach to automatic initialization, regardless of whether the automatic initialization is with 0 or with NaN.
12 hours ago
Just requiring explicit assignment before first use feels like the superior approach to automatic initialization, regardless of whether the automatic initialization is with 0 or with NaN.
That suggestion is often made.
The trouble with it is a bug I've seen often. People will get an error message about an "uninitialized variable". Then they go into "just get the compiler to shut up" mode, amd pick "0" as the initializer. Then, the program compiles and runs, and silently produces the wrong answer. Code reviews will simply pass over the "0" initializer, as it looks right.
With default NaN initialization, the programmer is more likely to stop and think about it, not just insert 0.
Another issue with it is:
For the purposes of code clarity I don't want to see a variable initialized to a value that is never used, just to shut the compiler up.
With the default initialization to nan, do you ever run into situations where people are searching for common sources for nan (nan literals, div by zero) and they can't find it? Or cases where only some branches but not others initialize the float?
To leave a variable uninitialized, use the construction:
Note that nobody is going to write this by accident. And it's easy to grep for.
To find the source of a NaN, it helps to know that every operation that has a NaN as an operand produces a NaN as a result. So if you see a NaN in the output, you can work backwards to where it originated.
3 replies →
How long did you think about this before making this declaration? How long did Walter Bright think about this before making his decision when designing his language? Not saying you're wrong, just something to think about perhaps.
C# requires explicit assignment. If an appeal to authority sways you (it shouldn't), you can substitute Anders Hejlsberg instead of this random OP. How long do you suppose Anders Hejlsberg thought about this?
But I contend it's more useful (and interesting) to think about the idea with your own mind instead of tallying up the perceived authority of its supporters and relying on trust. It was also somewhat rude to suggest that the OP had not given their idea much thought. This is a forum for discussion, isn't it?
Unfortunately, what happens with explicit assignment is programmers often enough will:
1. just insert '= 0;' to get it to compile
2. insert '= 0;' and then be puzzled by an initialization further along in the code
3. see the '= 0;' and wonder why the programmer did that as 0 was not a valid value for it
A goal of D is to be able to make code more understandable. Forcing a vacuous initialization on the programmer is not conducive to that.
Thank you. I've made many counter-intuitive decisions based on long experience. Sometimes I just have to say "trust me".
Like not allowing macros in D, or version algebra.
Yep. This is NaN as a billion dollar mistake all over again.
Unrecognized subtle errors in floating point calculations are worse problems.
Sure, but that only matters if default-initialising to NaN significantly reduces them compared to the alternatives. IME it takes a very finely calibrated level of thoughtfulness for your argument in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47928539 to work, to have a programmer who is simultaneously thoughtless enough to initialise to 0 without thinking if the compiler requires initialisation, but thoughtful enough to stop and think about it when the compiler initialises to NaN.