On 3/13/14, 11:37 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
As I've stated, it is not about the single decision, I don't care about
final vs virtual in our code. it's about the whole way that "planned
improvement" changes to the language are managed.
Got it, thanks.
What I was meaning is: why the past mega-thread about virtual vs final
(that I don't care about!) that seemed (to me!) that placed a concrete
direction goal was (to me!) scraped like a thunder in clean sky.
Where's the discussion why "it turned out to be not enough"?
What scares me (as a company using the language) was that I wasn't able
to "grasp" that fact in forum till now.
So, that could also happen to *other* aspect of the language that a care
for my business, without even having the ability do discuss about the
motivation of a decision.
There must be a way to convey that a decision has been made. It is
understood it won't please everybody, just like going the other way
won't please everybody. Please let me know what that way is.
Again, the whole point was that it seemed to me that a decision was
taken in that famous thread.
My feedback, take it as you want Andrei, it is that such behaviours are
a way more scaring that the hole point of managing a "planned" (again!)
language change.
Understood. That's one angle. The other angle is that a small but vocal
faction can intimidate the language leadership to effect a large
breaking change that it doesn't believe in.
Also let's not forget that a bunch of people will have not had contact
with the group and will not have read the respective thread. For them --
happy campers who get work done in D day in and day out, feeling no
speed impact whatsoever from a virtual vs. final decision -- we are
simply exercising the brunt of a deprecation cycle with undeniable costs
and questionable (in Walter's and my opinion) benefits.
Andrei
