D now has a dangerous competitor

[Basile B.]

On Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 10:57:23 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 10:43:24 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 04:53:59 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 23:27:09 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Honestly C++ did OOP somewhat right, because it wasn't forced 
>>> upon you, but C++ itself has design issues, that I think D 
>>> has solved very well.
>>>
>>> D does OOP better than C++, but D is still missing some very 
>>> common OOP patterns.
>>>
>>> See: 
>>> https://forum.dlang.org/thread/tjqxslxfxjgliyziznvk@forum.dlang.org
>>
>> No, that's not an issue to me, other PLs with OOP behave the 
>> same way. Problems D has with OOP are more
>>
>> - not truly virtual destructors (likely a forever problem)
>> - inherited constructors (should be solved by 
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1004.md)
>
> It's an issue with OOP, because the behavior works in literally 
> every other OOP language. D is the only one with a different 
> behavior and that makes it an issue.
>
> It might be an issue for you, but it certainly is an issue in 
> general.
>
> I agree with that those are problems too though.

Try Delphi, ObjFPC they also do the same as D. `protected` is 
there for what you thing is a bug. it's conform with the module 
system and the protections (or unit instead of module in the 
language i mentioned before).And this is just a detail 
anyway...just use protected.