Final by default?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/13/14, 11:37 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> As I've stated, it is not about the single decision, I don't care about
> final vs virtual in our code. it's about the whole way that "planned
> improvement" changes to the language are managed.

Got it, thanks.

> What I was meaning is: why the past mega-thread about virtual vs final
> (that I don't care about!) that seemed (to me!) that placed a concrete
> direction goal was (to me!) scraped like a thunder in clean sky.
>
> Where's the discussion why "it turned out to be not enough"?
>
> What scares me (as a company using the language) was that I wasn't able
> to "grasp" that fact in forum till now.
>
> So, that could also happen to *other* aspect of the language that a care
> for my business, without even having the ability do discuss about the
> motivation of a decision.
>
>> There must be a way to convey that a decision has been made. It is
>> understood it won't please everybody, just like going the other way
>> won't please everybody. Please let me know what that way is.
>
> Again, the whole point was that it seemed to me that a decision was
> taken in that famous thread.
>
> My feedback, take it as you want Andrei, it is that such behaviours are
> a way more scaring that the hole point of managing a "planned" (again!)
> language change.

Understood. That's one angle. The other angle is that a small but vocal 
faction can intimidate the language leadership to effect a large 
breaking change that it doesn't believe in.

Also let's not forget that a bunch of people will have not had contact 
with the group and will not have read the respective thread. For them -- 
happy campers who get work done in D day in and day out, feeling no 
speed impact whatsoever from a virtual vs. final decision -- we are 
simply exercising the brunt of a deprecation cycle with undeniable costs 
and questionable (in Walter's and my opinion) benefits.


Andrei