Is all this Invarient **** er... stuff, premature optimisation?

[Walter Bright]

Me Here wrote:
> That, for example, does not mean simply substituting an object handle
> for an OS handle. Nor caching of derived values unless their
> derivation is truly expensive. Nor the use of getters and setters to
> avoid direct manipulation of attributes, unless there is some genuine
> value-add from doing so. OO-dogma that they will isolate the library
> from speculative future changes in the underlying OS calls (that have
> been fixed in stone for 1 or4 decades or more) do not cut much ice
> with me.

I'm of the same opinion with that.

> One of the things that force me to go away from D a couple of years
> ago was the ever changing state of the libraries. Not the internal,
> implementations or occasional bugs, but the constantly changing
> interface definitions.

That's why D 1.0 was split off. It was done to provide a stable platform 
that only gets bug fixes.