Sealed classes - would you want them in D?

[Norm]

On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 02:32:05 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 02:00:17 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 00:28:42 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
>>> On Monday, 14 May 2018 at 19:40:18 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A slippery slope fallacy isn't helping your case. Write a 
>>>> DIP if it bothers you so much, as it changes the languages 
>>>> fundamentally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexander
>>>
>>> If 'getting a module to respect the enscapsulation boundaries 
>>> the programmer puts in place would change the language so 
>>> 'fundamentally', then the language 'already' presents big 
>>> problems for large complex application development.
>>>
>> Evidence for this claim please.
>
> - Object independence
> - Do not violate encapsulation
> - Respect the interface
>
> All large software projects are done in (or moving toward) 
> languages that respect these idioms.
>
> Those that don't, are the ones we typically have problems with.
>
> Isn't that evidence enough?

I'm seeing the opposite, more and more large applications 
adopting Python as much as possible and replacing big chunks of 
the C++ core and leaving only those C++ chunks where performance 
is all that really matters.

Encapsulation boundaries are completely arbitrary and where D 
choses to draw the line works very well in practice.

Bye,
Norm