Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 at 11:15:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 at 02:35:41 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> C is a brilliant language. That doesn't mean it hasn't made 
>> serious mistakes in its design. The array decay and 0 strings 
>> have proven to be very costly to programmers over the decades.
>
> I'd rather say that it is the industry that has misappropriated 
> C, which in my view basically was "typed portable assembly" 
> with very little builtin presumptions by design.

Lint was created in 1979 when it was already clear most AT&T 
developers weren't writing correct C code!

>
> I think K&R deserves credit for being able to say no and stay 
> minimal, I think the Go team deserves the same credit.

Of course, two of them are from the same team.

> The industry wanted portability and high speed and insisted 
> moving as a flock after C and BLINDLY after C++. Seriously, the 
> media frenzy around C++ was hysterical despite C++ being a bad 
> design from the start. The C++ media noise was worse than with 
> Java IIRC. Media are incredibly shallow when they are trying to 
> sell mags/books based on the "next big thing" and they can 
> accelerate adoption beyond merits. Which both C++ and Java are 
> two good examples of.
>
> There were alternatives such as Turbo Pascal, Modula-2/3, 
> Simula, Beta, ML, Eiffel, Delphi and many more. Yet, 
> programmers thought C was cool because it was "portable 
> assembly" and "industry standard" and "fast" and "safe bet".

This was a consequence of UNIX spreading into the enterprise, 
like we
have to endure JavaScript to target the browser, we were forced to
code in C to target UNIX.

Other OS just followed along, as we started to want to port those 
big
iron utilities to smaller computers.

If UNIX had been written in XPTO-LALA, we would all be coding in 
XPTO-LALA today.


--
Paulo