Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?

ProtectAndHide ProtectAndHide at
Sat Feb 11 01:15:49 UTC 2023

On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 23:24:11 UTC, thebluepandabear 
>> I think the 'real' problem, is that some core D people just 
>> refuse to allow D to provide such an option to the programmer.
> I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that heaps of D 
> programmers write procedural code and don't care about any 
> object oriented features, that's because they're 'old-school' 
> programmers, whereas OOP is 'new-school'.

OOP is not 'new-school' ..not by any means...

It had a period where it became 'more popular', that is for sure.

Some took it too far, as this has caused some friction, with many 
languages deciding to rebel against that style.

It is true, that no core D users will advocate anything OOP, that 
is for sure ;-)

However the language claims to support OOP, so there is some 
tension when newbies come to D and actually try it out.

I'm not an advocate of any style in particular. I'm happy to use 
any style that is clear to understand and use, suitable, and can 
provide reasonable guarantees around memory safety and 

But a language that claims to support OOP but doesn't even have 
type privacy, is a bit of joke IMO.

More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list