If you had money to place for a bounty, what would you choose?

[Namespace]

On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 18:10:43 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Monday, 2 December 2013 at 12:19:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> On 2 December 2013 19:33, Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 29 November 2013 at 13:44:10 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>>> * ARC
>>>> * rvalue -> ref
>>>> * virtual-by-default
>>>> * GC improvements
>>>> * AA fixes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 November 2013 07:01, Fra <Fra at b.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally I would love to see this old issue finally 
>>>> implemented/fixed:
>>>>> There can be only one alias this.
>>>>> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6083
>>>>>
>>>>> What would your choice be?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> I hope virtual-by-default never gets approved. I read DIP51 
>>> and quite
>>> frankly I am not convinced at all. It is basically "I do not 
>>> want to put
>>> final in front of my methods. Well, I do not want to put 
>>> virtual in front
>>> of my methods... But this is perhaps something for another 
>>> discussion...
>>>
>>
>> There's been endless discussions on the topic. There was a 
>> link to a thread
>> with loads of discussion.
>> The problem is that virtual is irrevocable. It can't be 
>> removed without
>> breaking the API, which means it's not possible to optimise a 
>> library in
>> that way at any time after it has already been released to the 
>> wild. The
>> converse is not true.
>> It has also been agreed that there is very little the 
>> compiler/optimiser
>> can do to help.
>> It's a dangerous default, it's got absolutely nothing to do 
>> with "I don't
>> want to type final" as you helpfully simplified it. You can 
>> type 'virtual:'
>> at the top, and you're set. Again, the converse doesn't stand, 
>> you can't
>> practically type 'final:' at the top since there will 
>> inevitable by SOME
>> virtual methods.
>>
>> We can spin off another thread if you like, or you can read 
>> through the old
>> ones. I don't think it's going to go any further than the 
>> other threads
>> already did.
>
> No offense, so far I haven's seen a GOOD reason for making 
> final to be the default. Your DIP51 is, to put mildly, pretty 
> subjective. You care about performance, I get it, but I do not.
Just because you do not care, it does not mean that it does not 
bother the majority. ;) But back to the topic.