Windows Header consts

[Prudence via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 20:55:25 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 19:06:48 UTC, Prudence wrote:
>> It's called encapsulation. It prevents namespace pollution and 
>> identifier collision.
>
> This is already provided by the D module system. Even if you 
> were to define a WM_CREATE in your code, it would not cause a 
> major problem with the Win32 name because you can disambiguate 
> via the imports. (That's also a minor hassle, but it is more 
> rare for these long names than a short name like WM anyway!)
>
> My editor already autocompletes WM_* names anyway, but again, 
> the D module system can help with that too if you didn't want 
> the keyword based completion I use for that.
>
> I just don't see any advantage here to counterbalance the pain 
> of changing it.

Again, it's called progress. Why keep using the same defunct 
system for endless years simply because that's the way it was 
done?

It's like saying we should never upgrade the space shuttle(not 
that it matters any more) simply because the previous one was 
working?

Do you seriously think that your logic is the best? If you could 
prove that Bill Gates designed the best OS ever possible, that is 
one thing... But changes are they shit all over themselves while 
doing it because they didn't learn from there mistakes(how could 
they, they go in to the future to see what kinda crap came out).

Do you think computers in 100 years are still going to be using 
windows? Do you think the designers will still use the same 
programming techniques? Do you think they will worship Bill Gates 
because think they the messaging model of Windows was the 
ultimate gift to humanity?

It's one thing to say: "I'm just too lazy to want to waste all 
that time changing stuff to make it work". That's a valid 
argument! But it's quite different to say "We don't need to 
change because this model works best and any modification of it 
will only produce a poorer result". If you are going to use the 
second argument, you need to prove it. If you are going to use 
the first, don't expect to get anywhere.

I just wish when people say stuff like you have done, you would 
be honest and say what you really mean so we don't have to waste 
time beating around the bush. A simple "I'm don't care what 
others want, I think we should keep it the same because I'm happy 
with it". I'm OK with such a statement. At least it's honest and 
direct. I might not like the selfishness that it implies, but to 
each his own, I suppose.

Oh, and who says you couldn't keep both systems? But I'll never 
understand why people think keeping a junker around and NOT allow 
something better is a good idea. You can keep your rusted ol' 
ElCamino that's missing a tire and has no hood if you want. But 
why stop me from having a Ferrari? Is it jealousy? Selfishness? 
There's enough gas to go around you know? And if we both arrive 
at the gas station we can take turns, if your willing?