Feedback on Átila's Vision for D

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:50:15PM +0000, Rumbu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 16:26:07 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 15:24:09 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 12:51:17 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > > > What is it about OOP in D that you find lacking?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The general attitude "OOP is bad, let's use a struct instead".
> > 
> > I don't know what to do about this. I prefer structs myself.
> 
> Wonderful. Then why ask in the first place?

He was just trying to understand where you're coming from. Doesn't mean
he has to agree with you.


[...]
> > > There is no language construct to use RAII or heap application on
> > > objects. We had scope but it was deprecated.
> > 
> > That would be news to me. Even if `scope obj = new MyClass;` got
> > deprecated, there are library solutions.
> 
> Library solution is not a *language construct*. You know what? Let's
> deprecate 'struct'. I bet that we can build a library solution
> instead. Too many keywords, 'switch' can be reduced to a library
> solution using just 'if's.

Why does it have to be a language construct? Please explain.


[...]
> > > Structs cannot implement interfaces (see next point for usage).
> > 
> > Also by design, unless you want something like Rust's traits or
> > Haskell's typeclasses. But none of this is OOP.
> 
> Being by design, doesn't mean it's correct.
> 
> I'm starting to understand Chris.

If by "understand Chris" you mean "D leadership sucks because their
opinion differs from mine", then sure.

Seriously, people need to get a grip here.  It's one thing to ask for
more communication from the leadership, which IMO is a valid complaint
because people need to know where the leadership stands w.r.t. various
issues.  It's totally a different thing to react with negativity when
the leadership's stance differs from yours.  Why should they be forced
to adopt your opinion instead of their own?  It's not as though you're
paying them to do what you want. And after all, it's *their* project not
yours.

At the very least, you could explain your position and why you think
your way is better. But if you've already done that and the leadership
still does not agree, then you have two choices: (1) swallow your pride
and accept the leadership's decision, or (2) understand that D is not
your pet project and since it doesn't match what you want, perhaps
you'll be happier somewhere else.

//

I seriously don't understand why people continue staying around
poisoning the well when it's clear that things will likely *never* go
their way, and that they would be much happier elsewhere.  If you don't
like the way things are going, and speaking up didn't convince anybody,
then well, this is an open source project, fork the code and do it your
way. See if it works out better. Maybe once you've garnered a larger
following from your great ideas, you can come back with solid proof that
your way is better, and then the leadership might be convinced to go
that way too.  Or just give up and realize D is not for you, and go join
the Rust community or something.

But why stay around just for the sake of complaining?  I mean,
personally I don't particularly like Java, but I don't go sticking my
nose in the Java forums and badmouth Java leadership and complain about
why Java sucks and why everyone else is stupid because they think Java
is great.  Well hello, they are on the Java forums *because* they think
Java is great, so if I don't agree with them, then it's time to move on
to something else (like D :-P) where I'll be much happier.  There's
really no reason to stick around if you're really that unhappy with the
way things are going.


T

-- 
MACINTOSH: Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs