Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 November 2014 at 02:56:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 11/20/14 5:09 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/20/2014 3:10 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
>> <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 20 November 2014 at 22:47:27 UTC, Walter Bright 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2014 1:55 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> All of this is beautiful until you try to implement a 
>>>>> quicksort
>>>>> in, haskell.
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>>>> Monads!
>>>
>>> I think Deadalnix meant that you cannot do in-place quicksort 
>>> easily
>>> in Haskell.
>>
>> That's correct.
>>
>>> Non-mutating quicksort is easy, no need for monads:
>>>
>>> quicksort []     = []
>>> quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort 
>>> greater)
>>>     where
>>>         lesser  = filter (< p) xs
>>>         greater = filter (>= p) xs
>>>
>>> https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction#Quicksort_in_Haskell
>>
>> Except that isn't really quicksort. Monads are the workaround 
>> functional
>> languages use to deal with things that need mutation.
>
> As I like to say, this troika has inflicted a lot of damage on 
> both FP and those beginning to learn it:
>
> * Linear-space factorial
> * Doubly exponential Fibonacci
> * (Non)Quicksort
>
> These losers appear with depressing frequency in FP 
> introductory texts.
>
>
> Andrei

Just like the OOP introductory books that still insist in talking 
about Cars and Vehicles, Managers and Employees, Animals and 
Bees, always using inheritance as code reuse.

Barely talking about is-a and has-a, and all the issues about 
fragile base classes.

--
Paulo