Final by default?

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 17:56:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 3/13/14, 10:21 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>
>> Told that, I'm following the forum as this is by far the best 
>> way to
>> reinforce of undermine my past decision (and sleep well at 
>> night!)
>> That why I think that, IMHO, companies that adopted D 
>> "seriously" are
>> present here, and are lurking.
>
> I don't think so. This isn't the case for my employer, and 
> hasn't been the case historically for a lot of the companies 
> using other languages. I have plenty of experience with forum 
> dynamics to draw from.

So we disagree on that, and that's fine to me, but this don't 
change the fact your presence here turns  your employer Facebook 
well represented in the forum now that it has something committed 
with D, IMHO...

>> Just to give a perspective, we are not so big like Sociomantic 
>> but we
>> are making some $M, so for us the decision was not a joke.
>
> Again, it's unlikely the decision would have been in other way 
> affected by a minor language design detail.
>
> The matter is you seem convinced final would improve your use 
> of D, and therefore are unhappy with the decision. For those 
> who aren't, we'd seem flaky by breaking their code.

As I've stated, it is not about the single decision, I don't care 
about final vs virtual in our code. it's about the whole way that 
"planned improvement" changes to the language are managed.

>> And to be honest what it's really scaring it's not the 
>> frequency of the
>> "planned improvement" of the language, but that a feeling 
>> turned  "a
>> solid piece of evidence" [1] into smoke. Today is virtual, 
>> tomorrow how
>> knows?
>>
>> [1]
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/yzsqwejxqlnzryhrkfuq@forum.dlang.org?page=23#post-koo65g:241nqs:242:40digitalmars.com
>
> Now I think you're being unfair. Yes, it was a good piece of 
> evidence. And yes, it turned out to be not enough. It's that 
> simple and that visible. What, are Walter and me doing cover-up 
> machinations now???

I'm not a native english speakers, but It doesn't seems to me 
that the meaning of what I wrote was that D is driven by a 
machinations.

What I was meaning is: why the past mega-thread about virtual vs 
final (that I don't care about!) that seemed (to me!) that placed 
a concrete direction goal was (to me!) scraped like a thunder in 
clean sky.

Where's the discussion why "it turned out to be not enough"?

What scares me (as a company using the language) was that I 
wasn't able to "grasp" that fact in forum till now.

So, that could also happen to *other* aspect of the language that 
a care for my business, without even having the ability do 
discuss about the motivation of a decision.

> There must be a way to convey that a decision has been made. It 
> is understood it won't please everybody, just like going the 
> other way won't please everybody. Please let me know what that 
> way is.

Again, the whole point was that it seemed to me that a decision 
was taken in that famous thread.

My feedback, take it as you want Andrei, it is that such 
behaviours are a way more scaring that the hole point of managing 
a "planned" (again!) language change.

Thanks,
- Paolo