division of objects into classes and structures is bad

[Weed]

Weed пишет:
> 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?

And against arguments are still necessary