Final by default?

[ed]

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 18:37:36 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
wrote:
> 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


This is still at DRAFT status: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP51

If this was in the "Accepted" state I would agree with your 
concerns.

I'd like to see DIPs and the Phobos Review Queue extended to 
cover all language changes and improvements, ignoring bug fixes. 
It might be the case now, but there is no way to tell ... at 
least as a D user.

The 2065 Change Log has 10 language changes, 1 compiler change 
and 4 library changes with no reference to a DIP or Phobos 
Review. The Change Log does reference DIP37 twice, but they are 
both bug fixes so it doesn't count :)

There should be a DIP for Walter's proposal in this thread, even 
if the decision has already been made. Also DIP51 status should 
be changed to "Rejected" with an paragraph explaining why it was 
rejected, and possibly a link back to the forum for the gory 
discussion details.

Cheers,
ed