Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 16 November 2014 at 17:46:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Everyone likes to rag on the Titanic's design, but I've read a 
> fair amount about it, and it's quite an unfair rap. It was, for 
> its day, the safest ship afloat, and did represent a 
> significant step forward in safety:

«The 20 lifeboats that she did carry could only take 1,178 
people, even though there were about 2,223 on board.» 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboats_of_the_RMS_Titanic

Thats not even a 85% solution, it is a 53% solution.

> It's unfair to apply the hubris of hindsight. Apply instead the 
> standards and practices of the foresight, and the Titanic comes 
> off very well.

I don't know, my grandfather's uncle went with one of the 
expeditions around Greenland and they did not sink. That ship 
(Fram) was designed for being frozen into the ice as it was 
designed for being used in to reach the north pole. The shape of 
the hull was designed to "pop out" of the ice rather than being 
pushed down so that the ship could float over the arctic as part 
of the ice. It was later used for several trips, notably the 
famous trip to reach the south pole. That's a lot closer to a 
100% engineering solution!

> It was not designed to drive full speed into an iceberg, and 
> modern ships can't handle that, either.

It was not sane to drive at full speed I guess. There was a lot 
of arrogance in the execution around Titanic, both leaving with 
insufficient life boats and driving at full speed suggest a lack 
of understanding…


Returning to programming languages: if I cannot implement 100% of 
my design with a language then it is a non-solution. 85% is not 
enough.

In business applications people sometimes have to settle for 
ready-made 85% solutions and change their business practices to 
get the last 15%, but that is not good enough for systems 
programming IMO. That's how you think about frameworks, but not 
how you think about language design (or system level runtime).