On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:56:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:23:53 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Forcing programmers to use a design mechanism rather than a
language mechanism to achieve the above abstraction is wrong.
This seems to be the source of the disagreement, correct?
There's no disagreement. It's you posting the same false claim
again and again (presumably because you're hoping it will come
up when someone does a search for it, or some similar reason)
and others explaining why you're wrong.
If you don't want to use the language, don't use it. You have
your subjective preferences. You are unable to muster a good
argument in favor of it. There's no reason to (yet again) post
the same thing over and over.
also, I noticed that you intentionally? did not respond to the
facts that I outlined:
ie.
Objects are data abstractions with an interface of named
operations and a hidden local state. Does anyone disagree with
this?
D does not have a language mechanism, but rather a design
mechanism that supports the above.
By that I mean, you cannot use a language 'declaration' mechanism
to enforce the above, but rather have to revert to a design
mechanism - putting the class that represents that object into a
module by itself. Does anyone disagrre with this?
Forcing programmers to use a design mechanism rather than a
language mechanism to achieve the above abstraction is wrong.
This seems to be the source of the disagreement, correct?
So some think its fine to force this onto programmers? That is
essentially your argument... right?
This is about the language. It's not personal. Don't make it
personal!
