Feedback on Átila's Vision for D

[Rumbu]

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 12:51:17 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 18:34:01 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 17:40:42 UTC, Atila Neves 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 16:42:28 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 13:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I will put this here: 
>>>> https://rawgit.com/wilzbach/state-of-d/master/report.html
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Which parts of that survey would you like the vision to 
>>> include?
>>
>> I already said that I don't endorse the list entirely, so my 
>> personal opinion is irrelevant, lost somewhere between the 
>> responses on the survey.
>>
>> But if you insist, I am personally disappointed about dub, 
>> phobos organization and function names, missing features, IDE 
>> integration, range syntax, OOP considered as a second-hand 
>> citizen.
>
> IDE integration seems to be a common refrain. I'm trying to 
> understand what it is people need here by asking questions.
>
> What is it about OOP in D that you find lacking?
>

The general attitude "OOP is bad, let's use a struct instead". 
When the struct becomes not enough, the wheel is reinvented by 
workarounds like alias this, alias that.

The fact that objects are by default allocated using gc. There is 
no language construct to use RAII or heap application on objects. 
We had scope but it was deprecated.

The fact that class encapsulation is not fully implemented. 
Private is not so private.

Templated members of interfaces are not working as expected 
(implementors are not forced to implement the templated members).

Structs cannot implement interfaces (see next point for usage).

> Could you please expand on what you mean about "range syntax"?

Already discussed here:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/qo85so$2iaj$1@digitalmars.com