Wed Oct 17 - Avoiding Code Smells by Walter Bright

[unprotected-entity]

On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 06:57:50 UTC, Neia Neutuladh 
wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 04:50:52 +0000, unprotected-entity wrote:
>> (q1) Why is it, that people who use D, object *so much* to the 
>> idea of
>> allowing (at the choice of the programmer) for a type to have 
>> it's own
>> private state *within* a module (so that its private state is 
>> respected
>> by other code also within that module)?
>
> We object because the people complaining can't point at a use 
> case that seems reasonable. If you provided real-world 
> examples, we'd consider them.
>
> We are further disinclined to engage with you as a collaborator 
> because you're insulting us and ignoring a lot of our responses 
> to you.
>
>> Or you ask it another way:
>> 
>> (q2)Why must a type within a module *always* have its private 
>> state
>> exposed to other code within the module? (the key word here, 
>> being
>> 'always').
>
> Because that is both simple and flexible. Swift forsakes 
> simplicity in favor of high granularity, and it's exhausting 
> just reading its protection modifier list.
>
>> (q3) Should a language intentionally set out to prevent a 
>> programmer
>> from making that choice?
>
> You're mischaracterizing the situation to make your preferred 
> feature look like the default. That's the opposite of how 
> language design works. Nothing is there by default. You add 
> things as necessary to get a language that's good enough.

la..de.da..de.dah...

really just sounds like more obfuscatation to me...

As I said, I don't think the 'please no, don't do it, it'll just 
make our syntax too complex' position can be taken seriously. And 
in any case, and how many time do I have to tell you this 
(turning your phrase to me, back on you), that this is NOT a 
request for change. This is just a discussion about what benefit 
it might provide, if the programmer had the choice to have 
declare private state for a type, and have the compiler enforce 
that design choice, by preventing other code within the module to 
have direct access to that types private state.

Now..go and read that last paragraph again...

no more obfuscation...please.