Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 16 November 2014 at 22:55:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Sorry but that is dumb, and the fact you are on the D newsgroup 
> rather on 100% solution languages newsgroup (Java is 100% OOP, 
> Haskell is 100% functional, Rust is 100% linear types, 
> Javascript is 100% callbacks, erlang is 100% concurrent, LISP 
> is 100% meta, BASIC is 100% imperative, python is 100% slow, 
> PHP 100% inconsistent) tells me that not even you believe in 
> your own bullshit.

Define what you mean by 100%? By 100% I mean that you can 
implement your system level design without bending it around 
special cases induced by the language.

The term "85% solution" is used for implying that it only 
provides a solution to 85% of what you want to achieve (like a 
framework) and that you have to change your goals or go down a 
painful path to get the last 15%.

ASM is 100% (or 0%). You can do anything the hardware supports.

C is close to 98%. You can easily get the last 2% by writing asm.

Java/C# are 90%. You are locked up in abstracted frameworks.

HTML5/JS is 80%. You can do certain things efficiently, but other 
things are plain difficult.

Flash/ActionScript is 60%. …

What Jonathan Blunt apparently wants is a language that is 
tailored to the typical patterns seen in games programming, so 
that might mean that e.g. certain allocation patterns are 
supported, but others not. (Leaving out the 15% that is not used 
in games programming). This is characteristic of programming 
frameworks.

I think it is reasonable to push back when D is moving towards 
becoming a framework. There are at least two factions in the D 
community. One faction is looking for an application framework 
and the other faction is looking for a low level programming 
language.

These two perspectives are not fully compatible.