On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 13:00:04 UTC, thebluepandabear wrote:
> For my school I am commissioned to create many types of software. I tried to have a look at some of the gui kits in D but there was no tutorial for how to use them and they seemed as if they are lacking features in comparison to Qt/JavaFX.

So your objection is one of newbie documentation. That's fair. Qt I always thought had nice docs, they're hard to beat. I've been slowly adding more to my stuff but it is a slow process.

idk about features though, you saying "seemed" means you probably don't even actually know what they have so that's not as actionable.

On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:

> Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,

We've discussed the 'private' topic very many times already. C++'s private necessitate the 'friend' keyword, which comes with it's own problems.

Besides, D has zero problems with its private implementation in the sense that there has been zero bugs related to it being that way. Given the number of individuals who bring this topic up over and over up is so few that I don't think there is a common problem.

Do you have actual bugs related to this? "Wanting" the inclusion of a feature is sufficient.

In contrast, I use D every day and love its relaxed attitude towards private.

> and then it
> was the same,they are always unwilling to add facilities useful

That is not correct. The truth is, nobody is jumping to implementations just because some people think they are useful. There are always valid reasons for including a feature or not.

Ali

On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
>
> > Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,
>
> We've discussed the 'private' topic very many times already. C++'s private necessitate the 'friend' keyword, which comes with it's own problems.
>
> Besides, D has zero problems with its private implementation in the sense that there has been zero bugs related to it being that way. Given the number of individuals who bring this topic up over and over up is so few that I don't think there is a common problem.
>
> Do you have actual bugs related to this? "Wanting" the inclusion of a feature is sufficient.
>
> In contrast, I use D every day and love its relaxed attitude towards private.
>
> > and then it
> > was the same,they are always unwilling to add facilities
> useful
>
> That is not correct. The truth is, nobody is jumping to implementations just because some people think they are useful. There are always valid reasons for including a feature or not.
>
> Ali

You mentioned previously that D implements various things in unprincipled ways.

I guess, if one wants to use D, one has to be comfortable with this.

But using a relaxed attitude towards the implementation of such a common and important abstraction, that in turn allows me to so easily shoot myself in the foot, is not really an attractive feature .. to me ;-)

btw. When a newbie to D raises ideas, suggestions, etc... and you counter them with (in essence) 'we don't need that in D, but go write a dip if you think we do' attitude, is a real turn off.