division of objects into classes and structures is bad

[Weed]

Weed пишет:
> Weed пишет:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
>>> Weed wrote:
>>> [about structs vs. classes]
>>>> It is very a pity.
>>>> My small opinion: it is impossible to reduce performance for struggle
>>>> against potential errors - such languages already are, it more
>>>> high-level. It how to refuse pointers because they are dangerous,
>>>> difficult for beginners and without them it is possible to make any
>>>> algorithm.
>>> It's attractive to deal in absolutes, but also dangerous. When C came
>>> about, naysayers complained that it was consistently 30% slower than
>>> assembler, and generated larger code by an even higher margin. Then,
>>> some asked, what would you choose, one OS that's cool because it's
>>> written in C, or one that's one third faster? and so on. What people
>>> have forgotten by now is that C *was* high level. And it *did* incur a
>>> performance hit. It also had desirable properties that overcame that hit.
>>>
>> Can in C# (it uses as far as I know too such sharing) such approach and
>> it is justified - microsoft accelerates replacement of hardware for new
>> OS. :) But we after all not blindly copy C#?
>>
>> After all this problem can be solved, IMHO.
>> I suggest to make so:
>>
>> 1. To leave structures in that kind in which they is (POD)
>>
>> 2. To permit classes declaration such what they in C++
>>
>> 3. To permit transfer the classes on value (for compulsory pass by
>> reference and for declaration through "new" now we have "ref" keyword)
>>
>> 3. To check slicing during compilation. It is possible?
> 
> For example prohibit assigning on value to the types, not being base or
> this type
> 
>> 4. "scope" for classes to deprecate as superfluous
>>
>>
>> In that case there will be problems?
>>
>>

Who agrees with me? There are still ideas as it is possible to solve
this problem and not to destroy language?