Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 15:57:18 UTC, Nick Treleaven
wrote:
> I think Rust's lifetimes would be a huge change if ported to D. 
> In Rust user types often need annotations as well as function 
> parameters. People tend to want Rust's guarantees without the 
> limitations. I think D does need some kind of scope attribute 
> verification, but we need to throw out some of the guarantees 
> Rust makes to get an appropriate fit for existing D code.
>

Rust is not the first language going that road. The problem is
that you get great complexity if you don't want to be too
limiting in what you can do. This complexity ultimately ends up
costing more than what you gain.

I think the sane road to go into is supporting
ownership/burrowing for common cases, and fallback on the GC, or
unsafe construct for the rest.

One have to admit there is no silver bullet, and shoehorning
everything in the same solution is not gonna work.