Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In this article:
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm
Herb Sutter makes a powerful argument that overridable functions
(customization points) should actually not be the same as the publically
available interface. This view rhymes with the Template Method pattern
as well.
Ever since I read that earlier this year, I've wondered about this (from
the spec):
"All non-static non-private non-template member functions are virtual.
This may sound inefficient, but since the D compiler knows all of the
class hierarchy when generating code, all functions that are not
overridden can be optimized to be non-virtual. In fact, since C++
programmers tend to "when in doubt, make it virtual", the D way of "make
it virtual unless we can prove it can be made non-virtual" results, on
average, in many more direct function calls."
Based on what Herb says, D is actively encouraging bad design...
