On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 05:35:30 UTC, Amorphorious wrote:
There is another problem:
3rd: You are a brainwashed monkey who can't think for himself.
Gee..takes some real brains to come up with that one.
See, You learned a little about C++/C#/Java and think the world
must conform to what they say is correct and deny everything
that contradicts it rather than first seeing if you are on the
wrong side of the contradiction.
The fact is, there is no reason a module should be restricted
to see it's own classes private members.
Yeah that sounds fine. As long as you're willing to give up the
concept of class encapsulation.
And, as long as you are willing to have programmers use the same
syntax in D, as used in the 3 most widely used lanaguages on the
planet, but get very different semantics. It's a real gotcha for
those programmers.
It's sorta like a family who runs around pretending that they
can't see each others private parts. Sure, it sounds like a
good thing... until someone accidentally drops the towel and
the offended calls the cop on their brother and has him
arrested for breaking the law.
I'm not interested in your fanatasies. Keep them to yourself.
You should learn that your view of the world is very minute and
stop trying to fit the world in to your box. It's called
growing up. If you can't make a distinction between C++
encapsulation and D encapsulation you have far bigger problems
than you think.
I think the view of the 3 most widely used langauges on the
planet, is not something to dismiss so easily. D has what, 1000
programmers, maybe.. so I wonder whose world is really minute.
In any case, I'm not attacking D. I use it. I am just questioning
whether the different semantics for private, in D, is really
worth it.
