`restricted` member variables

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 22:29:13 UTC, forkit wrote:
> Well, i was going to limit myself to only one post.. but you're 
> comment requires a rebuttal ;-)
>
> As an OO programmer for over 20 years (and before that a C/C++ 
> programmer for a short period), I can tell you defintively, 
> that D turning a 'class' type into a 
> 'doWhatEverTheFu%#YouWantWithMe' type, is not acceptable to me, 
> as a programmer.
>
> That I need to 'justify' to the D community, as to  why I would 
> want an 'option' to declare private members inside my class.. 
> really.. it's a complete joke.
>
> It's a even bigger joke, that you can't all see that it's a 
> complete joke.
>
> C like procedural programming is fine in D (it's really what it 
> does best).
>
> I've been 'playing' with D for what... 6 years now I think....I 
> have a LOT of code in D...but not once have I ever been tempted 
> to do OOP in D. And I never will.
>
> Other languages understand the concept of the class type.
>
> I mean shit, even Javascript gets it (and that's not even a 
> language! .. but I digress.
>
> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/06/implementing-private-fields-for-javascript/
>
> You may retort, i know you will. but my point is made, and I 
> need not clarify it any further in this thread.

Considering you failed to point at any concrete problem caused by 
that design decision, I'll now have to increase my confidence in 
the fact that there is none.

After, if there were, you'd have stated them.