Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
ProtectAndHide
ProtectAndHide at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 21:10:05 UTC 2023
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 07:49:03 UTC, RTM wrote:
>
> Implying that D language maintainers should prefer your
> personal taste over modern practice?
So it's now modern practice to dump the principle of data hiding?
I'm sure that will surely advance the science of programming.
> Don't like it, don't use it.
On this we can agree.
D has an ongoing, and ever-getting-stronger love affair with C.
So for OO programmers, I'd argue there are far better languages
available - ones that provide the tools to make OOP easier,
rather than harder, and give programmers choice over their
design, instead of forcing a design upon them.
A language that claims to support OOP using classes, but provides
no language mechanism to the programmer so they can explicately
hide members, but rather ***INSISTS*** that all class members be
wide open to use by all other code in the module, is just a joke
- IMO.
Better for D to stop making that claim, and remove classes from
the language.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list