On Saturday, 12 May 2018 at 07:39:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Ultimately, it's a tradeoff, and arguments can be made for and
against. But in practice, it works extremely well. You're
certainly free to not like this particular design choice, but
it's one that most of us have no problem with, and I'd be
shocked to ever see it change. So, you can be unhappy about it,
but complaining isn't going to change anything. You're either
going to have to just learn to live with it or not use D.
- Jonathan M Davis
I'm not so much complaining about it, as warning others of it.
D modules do NOT (cannot) respect the encapsulation of the class,
and therefore, D modules containing classes, can very easily (to
borrow a phrase from Bertrand Meyer) start to resemble "a chunk
of Swiss cheese that has been left outside for too long..".
As for using D, this is why I don't really use D for anything
other than small tasks - where I can happily revert to procedural
type programming ( C like), and not have to worry about the
issues of broken class encapsulation - which will almost
certainly lead to unexpected side-effects, and create whole new
'class' of problems that D programmers have to deal with.
