Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 11/16/2014 11:59 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 November 2014 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> This made C far, far more difficult and buggy to work with than it should have
>> been.
>
> Depends on your view of C, if you view C as step above assembly then it makes
> sense to treat everything as pointers.

If you read my article, the fix does not take away anything.


>> 2. 0 terminated strings
>>
>> This makes it surprisingly difficult to do performant string manipulation, and
>> also results in a excessive memory consumption.
> Whether using sentinels is slow or fast depends on what you want to do, but it
> arguably save space for small strings (add a length + alignment and you loose ~6
> bytes).
 >
> Also dealing with a length means you cannot keep everything in registers on
> simple CPUs.
>
> A lexer that takes zero terminated input is a lot easier to write and make fast
> than one that use length.

I've worked enough with C to know that these arguments do not hold up in real code.


> Nothing prevents you from creating a slice as a struct though.

I've tried that, too. Doesn't work - the C runtime library prevents it, as well 
as every other library.


>> sensibilities to it. But if we were to, a vast amount of C could be
>> dramatically improved without changing its fundamental nature.
>
> To me the fundamental nature of C is:
>
> 1. I can visually imagine how the code maps onto the hardware
>
> 2. I am not bound to a complicated runtime

None of the fixes I've suggested impair that in any way.