On 11/2/22 13:38, UmmReally wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 18:02:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> On 11/2/22 00:19, UmmReally wrote:

>> > Even javascript has private to the class.
>>
>> Because monkey see monkey do.
>
> Mmm... javascript... the most widely used language in the world, used on
> 95% (?)of all websites, by 16+ million developers...
>
> That makes for a lot of monkeys.

Those 16+ million developers are not the designers of Javascript; they just use it. The reason Javascript has private-to-class is because other languages had that before Javascript was created in 1995.

Ali

On 11/2/22 13:13, UmmReally wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 18:02:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> On 11/2/22 00:19, UmmReally wrote:

>> > D is comlete joke! i.e. ..>  that you cannot even make a
>> private member
>> > within a class (except through some stupid 'workaround').

>> > YES 'offical' D really IS
>> that bad!

> You always accuse people of trolling for some reason??

It's because people do troll.

> Highjack my comment and make me out to be a troll.

Please just look up the meaning of trolling in your favorite dictionary. Here is one:

  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll

Especially 2.a: "to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content".

My advice to anyone who doesn't like being called a troll is simply to not troll.

Ali

On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 20:13:59 UTC, UmmReally wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 18:02:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> On 11/2/22 00:19, UmmReally wrote:
>> > [...]
>> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> brotown.
>> > [...]
>> not
>> > [...]
>>
>> A workaround is for a real problem not for an imagined one.
>>
>> Besides, it is not good style to still complain about "official D" if you are happy with your fork.
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> Because monkey see monkey do.
>>
>> > [...]
>> private member
>> > [...]
>>
>> That kind of thought comes from cargo cult. Your interpretation of "cannot" shows a misunderstanding: D's choice is by design.
>>
>> > [...]
>> that bad!
>>
>> Then forkit!
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> Just don't continue trolling then. Be grateful.
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> There is only one definition left then: trolling.
>>
>> > [...]
>> else work (to
>> > [...]
>>
>> I am not jealous. Email me when private-to-class will ever be really useful to you.
>>
>> Ali
>
> You always accuse people of trolling for some reason??
>
> I understand group/tribal psychology very well, so i can excuse you're comments.
>
> But for the record, my post clearly states it was not a complaint, that I was expressing an opionion in relation to the topic of this thread, and that I am grateful for being able to build (fork) on someone elses work.
>
> So go ahead. Highjack my comment and make me out to be a troll.
>
> But you only make yourself, and the D 'tribe', look bad when you do so.
>
> The topic of the thread is 'Is D really that bad' (not 'Express and opinion so we can call you a troll').

The statement that D is a "complete joke" and "YES 'offical' D really IS that bad" due to D's module level encapsulation is quite extreme to the point where one can reasonably wonder if it is indeed trolling, particular if combined with mild mockery ("he'll consider it...but 'private to the class'...never!"), and in light of previous history of communications (even Username choices).

Jordan

On 11/1/2022 7:21 PM, Tejas wrote:
> It's already been reported

Good.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:17:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:

> Those 16+ million developers are not the designers of Javascript; they just use it. The reason Javascript has private-to-class is because other languages had that before Javascript was created in 1995.
>
> Ali

The millions of lemmings might be right in this case. There seems to be no good reason to think module-level is superior to class-level. It is definitely surprising and annoying to a lot of programmers coming from class-based OOP languages.

On 11/2/22 21:54, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:17:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
>> Those 16+ million developers are not the designers of Javascript; they
>> just use it. The reason Javascript has private-to-class is because
>> other languages had that before Javascript was created in 1995.
>>
>> Ali
>
> The millions of lemmings might be right in this case. There seems to be
> no good reason to think module-level is superior to class-level.

Yes: Just like there is no reason class-level is superior to module-level. There are pros and cons to both. For example, module-level is better because it obviates the need for the 'friend' keyword.

> It is
> definitely surprising

Yes, a new language can be surprising in many ways.

> and annoying

That's harsh and subjective... That can't be a reason to complicate the language. In my case, I fully embraced module-level private as a net win. If I am not alone, it is proof there are also programmers that think otherwise.

> to a lot of programmers coming from
> class-based OOP languages.

I welcome all of them and invite them to realize that they want (not "need") class-level private just because they are used to it.

Ali

On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 05:29:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 11/2/22 21:54, Max Samukha wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:17:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli
> wrote:
> >
> >> Those 16+ million developers are not the designers of
> Javascript; they
> >> just use it. The reason Javascript has private-to-class is
> because
> >> other languages had that before Javascript was created in
> 1995.
> >>
> >> Ali
> >
> > The millions of lemmings might be right in this case. There
> seems to be
> > no good reason to think module-level is superior to
> class-level.
>
> Yes: Just like there is no reason class-level is superior to module-level. There are pros and cons to both. For example, module-level is better because it obviates the need for the 'friend' keyword.
>

Well, my version of D has private to the class. I do not use friends.

So you argument is wrong.

What you (always) do, is make it out to be one or the other.

I have both private to the class, and private to the module, in my version of D.

Please STOP making it an argument for one or the other.

How about D letting the programmer make the choice.


> > It is
> > definitely surprising
>
> Yes, a new language can be surprising in many ways.
>

Especially when such an important type as the 'class' has no concept of privacy within a module (not even an option). No wonder people as suprised. You expect them not to be??

>
> That's harsh and subjective... That can't be a reason to complicate the language. In my case, I fully embraced module-level private as a net win. If I am not alone, it is proof there are also programmers that think otherwise.
>
> > to a lot of programmers coming from
> > class-based OOP languages.
>
> I welcome all of them and invite them to realize that they want (not "need") class-level private just because they are used to it.
>
> Ali

Again, my version (fork) of D allows me to use BOTH. Offical D does not.

Why you so against people having a choice to do in D, what they can do in any other major programming language? I don't get it. Maybe it's you trolling us?

On 03/11/2022 6:57 PM, UmmReally wrote:
> Why you so against people having a choice to do in D.

You have the freedom to fork, which you have done.

You weren't the first, nor will you be the last to do so.

However this does not require us to upstream those changes and we are not convinced of your argument. This line of discussion is simply not fruitful and you are not being limited in what your fork does, please move on from this.