Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 20 November 2014 at 10:24:30 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 November 2014 at 03:27:54 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 4:32 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> To quote the guy from the PL for video games video serie, a 
>>> 85%
>>> solution often is preferable.
>>
>> Spoken like a true engineer!
>
> 85% often means being at the bottom of the uncanny valey. 65% 
> or 95% are more preferable.

85% is an image rather than an exact number. The point being,
every construct are good at some thing, and bad at other. Making
them capable of doing everything come at a great complexity cost,
so it is preferable to aim for a solution that cope well with
most use cases, and provide alternative solutions for the
horrible cases.

Many language make the mistake of thinking something is the holly
grail, be it OOP, functional programming or linear types. I do
think that it is a better engineering solution to provide a
decent support for all of theses, and doing so we don't need to
get them handle 100% of the case, as we have other language
construct/paradigm that suit better difficult cases anyway.