Final by default?

[Manu]

On 14 March 2014 06:09, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>wrote:

> On 3/13/14, 11:37 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Got it, thanks.
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Understood. That's one angle. The other angle is that a small but vocal
> faction can intimidate the language leadership to effect a large breaking
> change that it doesn't believe in.
>

I feel like this was aimed at me, and I also feel it's unfair.

If you recall back to the first threads on the topic, I was the absolute
minority, almost a lone voice. Practically nobody agreed, infact, there was
quite aggressive objection across the board, until much discussion about it
has passed.
I was amazed to see in this thread how many have changed their minds from
past discussions. Infact, my impression from this thread is that the change
now has almost unanimous support, and by my recollection, many(/most?) of
those people were initially against.

To say this is a small vocal faction is unfair (unless you mean me
personally?). A whole bunch of people who were originally against, but were
convinced by argument and evidence is not a 'faction' with an agenda to
intimidate their will upon leadership.
I suspect what seems strange to the participants in this thread, that
despite what eventually appears to have concluded in almost unanimous
agreement (especially surprising considering the starting point years
back!), is the abrupt refusal.
That's Walter's prerogative I guess... if he feels that strongly about it,
then I'm not going to force the issue any more.

I am surprised though, considering the level of support for the change
expressed in this thread, which came as a surprise to me; it's the highest
it's ever been... much greater than in prior discussions on the topic.
You always say forum participation is not a fair representation of the
community, but when the forum representation is near unanimous, you have to
begin to be able to make some assumptions about the wider communities
opinion.

Back to pushing the ARC wagon for me...

Also let's not forget that a bunch of people will have not had contact with
> the group and will not have read the respective thread. For them -- happy
> campers who get work done in D day in and day out, feeling no speed impact
> whatsoever from a virtual vs. final decision -- we are simply exercising
> the brunt of a deprecation cycle with undeniable costs and questionable (in
> Walter's and my opinion) benefits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140314/3a46ed98/attachment-0001.html>