Why is D unpopular

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Saturday, 11 June 2022 at 08:57:40 UTC, forkit wrote:
> When you redefine what an 'object' is, then anything can be OOP 
> ;-)
>
> Please properly acquaint yourself this this concept ;-)
>
> http://kristennygaard.org/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_OO_start.html

Heh, I had a short face-to-face exchange about the merits of the 
minimalism of BETA (the Simula successor) with Kristen and his 
opinion was that Self went one step to far, but he never 
suggested that it wasn't OOP. He also made a big point of OO not 
being a paradigm, but something to be used with other appraches. 
At that point he also felt that stakeholders would benfit from 
being trained in OO (IIRC) so it was more about a modelling 
mindset. He was also highly sceptical of pure OOP detached from 
modelling (I believe this was an american thing). To Kristen, OO 
was useful outside of programming and fit into ideas about 
empowerment. (My attempt at recollecting what he said in the 90s).

(Languages presented at OO conferences are OO. Simula didnt get 
encapsulation until the 70s btw.)

What is funny about the D culture is that the same people who 
whine about OO also would celebrate "alias this" as a great 
invention! The same people who point out how great "voldemort 
types" are, because they think it gives better encapslation, also 
think that having class encasulation is bad.

(These NIH traits and celebration if being different for the sake 
of being different are sure signs of a cult...)