Sealed classes - would you want them in D? (v2)

[KingJoffrey]

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 14:46:40 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
>
>
> Nope, I'm simply a bystander who sees lack of class scope as a 
> "feature" of D that is usefull in some cases while not hurting 
> idiomatic OOP as long as you only define a single class (+ 
> unittests) inside a module.
> If you want that too but still want static functions outside 
> classes, you can mix in C# extension methods paradigm into D. 
> Which is why I don't see any reason to add this.
>

And there's the point I'm trying to make.

Why should a c# programmer come to D, if, in order to keep 
private private, they have to resort to this. It makes no sense. 
They may as well just stick to C#.

Same for Java programmers, same for C++ programmers 
(class-oriented ones).

As it is, D tells them, stuff you, private is now 
private-but-module-public, and you have no say it.

My suggestions are about resolving this, in order to attract more 
programmers to D, because I doubt I'm the only person in the 
world, that believes an object has a right to privacy.

But as I've said, I do really get the feeling the D community 
does not want more programmers, unless they are like them.