Adding a new design constraint to D

[forkit]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 09:01:09 UTC, surlymoor wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 08:25:34 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 22:45:44 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>>[...]
>>
>> I'm happy (more than happy actually) to conclude my input into 
>> this discusssion with this:
>>
>> [...]
>
> Then draft a DIP to get the ball rolling.
> But you won't.

It has more chance of happening in D3.. but even, it's only a 
slight chance.

A DIP is pointless. The problem is:

  - there's just not enough OO programmers in the D community to 
get sufficient support for the idea. That gets clearly 
demonstrated whenever the idea emerges (again .. and again).

  - most D programmers seems to be using procedural decomposition, 
not OO decomposition.

- Walter has voiced his opinion on this matter. I cannot see how 
a DIP would change his perspective.

- Who would implement it? Walter? I mean c'mon..

My guess is, that those insisting that a DIP be produced, are 
likely those that know such a DIP will never be accepted. Then 
they can put this idea to rest, forever - cause the DIP was 
rejected.

Lastly, I have available, really good alternatives to D, for OOP. 
So I think my attention is better spend elsewhere now.

If D3 ever arrives on the scene, I'll take a brief look to see if 
anything has changed. But I doubt it will.