Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 17 November 2014 at 22:03:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> You can always add a sentinel for specific cases. But C forces 
> its use for all strings for practical purposes. The design is 
> backwards, and most of the time a sentinel is the wrong choice.

Ok, but I would rather say it like this: the language C doesn't 
really provide strings, it only provides literals in a particular 
format. So the literal-format is a trade-off between having 
something generic and simple and having something more complex 
and possibly limited (having 255 char limit is not good enough in 
the long run).

I think there is a certain kind of beauty to the minimalistic 
approach taken with C (well, at least after ANSI-C came about in 
the late 80s). I like the language better than the libraries…

> BTW, I learned how to program on a 6800. I'm not ignorant of 
> those machines. And frankly, C is too high level for the 6800 
> (and the other 8 bit CPUs). The idea that C maps well onto 
> those processors is mistaken.

Yes I agree, but those instruction sets are simple. :-) With only 
256 bytes of builtin RAM (IIRC) the 6800 was kind of skimpy on 
memory! We used it in high school for our classes in digital 
circuitry/projects.

(It is very difficult to discuss performance on x86, there is 
just too much clutter and machinery in the core that can skew 
results.)