We are forking D

[Lance Bachmeier]

On Monday, 8 January 2024 at 08:25:08 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka 
wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 January 2024 at 16:43:17 UTC, Lance Bachmeier 
> wrote:
>> I'd much rather Adam put his time into a fork, rather than the 
>> more common approach where he'd post here under various names, 
>> make ridiculous claims, and vandalize the discussions. If 
>> you're new, you may not have seen the many posts from someone 
>> that doesn't like private at the module level.
>
> Do you think that there can't possibly be more than one person 
> in the whole world, who doesn't like the D's private keyword? 
> And that this single person persistently registering under 
> different names is the only possible explanation? Really?
>
> I did mention the private keyword in this forum before. I 
> guess, now I'm starting to understand the reasons why some 
> topics provoke unusually hostile reaction around here.

Here's one example, posted under the name "UmmReally", even 
admitting that it's off-topic:

> In my version of D (a fork based on someone elses work), I am 
> not 'forced' to use that 'workaround'.
>
> Even javascript has private to the class.
>
> D is comlete joke! i.e. ..>  that you cannot even make a 
> private member within a class (except through some stupid 
> 'workaround').
>
> So with that...back on to topic.. YES 'offical' D really IS 
> that bad!
>
> (but not my version of D ;-)
>
> btw. This is not really a complaint ;-)
> 
>It's great that I can create my own fork based on someone else 
>work (to do what I can do in anyother langauge, including 
>javascript!).

There's nothing useful about a post like that. But I'm not just 
talking about this topic. We used to have trolls waiting for any 
positive post so that they could add a bunch of 
fabricated/misleading statements to the thread. They wanted to 
make it so Google wouldn't return anything positive about D (and 
they mostly succeeded).