On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 14:54:57 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
> On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 14:46:40 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
>>
>> Also, I would verry much much like it if you would not resort to comparing me to "one of those facebook employees." It's just setting a mood for the conversation which no one likes, regardless what anyone thinks about facebook employees.
>
> people are so touchy here....

You want to have your cake and eat it, you want to be immature and label and denigrate people but you also want to be taken seriously.

But you're too far up your own class to see it.

Please stop replying Dave, it isn't worth it.

Do something more productive with your time :)

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 16:35:57 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> Please stop replying Dave, it isn't worth it.
>
> Do something more productive with your time :)

I know, but... it helps me relax. ;-)

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 15:30:40 UTC, Gheorghe Gabriel wrote:
> On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 15:07:39 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
>> My suggestions are about resolving this, in order to attract more programmers to D, because I doubt I'm the only person in the world, that believes an object has a right to privacy.
>
> Of course you are not the only person that believes that.
> To have full private access in module scope is like you live in a building and there are no walls between apartments.

If you put multiple classes in a single module, yeah it feels like it, that why people here recommend one class per module.

Hi folks, it looks like at least a few branches of this thread have run well past their useful course and into tedious territory.

We don't like to go about killing threads, so we kindly ask that you all refrain from posting in this thread going forward.


Thanks much!

Andrei

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 19:51:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hi folks, it looks like at least a few branches of this thread have run well past their useful course and into tedious territory.
>
> We don't like to go about killing threads, so we kindly ask that you all refrain from posting in this thread going forward.
>
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Andrei

wtf!

That's the whole reason Dave got involved in this discussion - to kill it off.

You've just empowered people like Dave.

Well done Andrei.

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 19:51:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hi folks, it looks like at least a few branches of this thread have run well past their useful course and into tedious territory.
>
> We don't like to go about killing threads, so we kindly ask that you all refrain from posting in this thread going forward.
>
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Andrei

Andrei.

Any debate about restoring the rights and autonomy of the class, should not be killed off.

Any programming language that discriminates against the class, encourages class warfare, does not deserve to be called a programming langauge.

Let the debate continue....don't further disempower those advocating for the rights of the class.

Don't worry class, some of us will always stand up to those that wish to destroy you.

(ohh... is that what 'destroy' means... now I get it Andrei).

On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 03:10:39 UTC, Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
>
> Any debate about restoring the rights and autonomy of the class, should not be killed off.
>
> Any programming language that discriminates against the class, encourages class warfare, does not deserve to be called a programming langauge.
>
> Let the debate continue....don't further disempower those advocating for the rights of the class.
>
> Don't worry class, some of us will always stand up to those that wish to destroy you.
>
> (ohh... is that what 'destroy' means... now I get it Andrei).

I agree with my close, long time friend, Bjarne.

Private access specifiers are used intentionally, in conjunction with carefully designed public method implementationsm, to enforce class invariants—constraints on the state of objects.

As langauges continue towards relaxing, and even 'destroying' these constraints, the class will become an extinct species.

And yet, the class/object model has proven to be a very powerful and unifying concept. If we destroy the class, we destroy the very core of not just the class, but also ourselves.

For that matter, if we destroy the interface of the function, we end up in the same disastrous situation. i.e pointers! god help us all, cause nobody else can!

Please, let's not destroy the autonomy of the object. We are ourselves, objects, afterall.

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 03:19:34 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
>
> 18+ years, and still less than 1000 programmers.
>

What kind of misinformation is that?

vibe.d alone has over 2000 downloads per week and I'll mind you that regular users of vibe.d does not download or update the package that often.

That means a large percentage of those are either new people trying out vibe.d.

And most people programming in D do not even do web related programming or uses vibe.d, so in that sense the amount of people using D is WAY MORE than the amount of people weekly using vibe.d.

Put that into perspective.

I cannot take you seriously when all you do is spread misinformation and invalid statistics.

On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 07:34:24 UTC, bauss wrote:
>
> I cannot take you seriously when all you do is spread misinformation and invalid statistics.

Don't under-estimate, the power of misinformation and invalid statistics.

After all, if both can help you become supreme leader of the worlds foremost superpower, then, maybe they can also convince people to make 'the class' a protected species, and save it from extinction.