Python's features, which requires D

[cym13 via Digitalmars-d-learn]

> Not sure what kind of meat you mean, but I really don't see 
> much meat in ranges. Of course, this is 10 times better and 
> easier to use than STL iterators C++. For me the most important 
> feature D are mixins, which I, unfortunately, rarely use. I'm 
> waiting for new features from D: for new designs, not simply 
> the expansion of Phobos and fix bugs in DMD :) Should I wait 
> for these new features? It seems to me that everyone is not 
> enough to simply correct C++ — they all want a language in 
> which many different sugar. In my opinion, sugar you can try to 
> shake out of Lisp, if possible :)
>

I think you are mistaken. The hard part about growing a
programming language isn't adding features, it's finding the right
core of features that are stable yet generic enough to answer
everything in their own way.

This is why C still is such a popular language, it hardly evolvevd
since the begginning. It is also why Java in its time or Go know
are popular among companies: they are boring, just boring. But 
they
are stable. C++ wanted to address every problem, and look at it
know.

We have to develop a style, not more features. Python has its own
style but every new feature (and they are rare) is very diligently
examined. Most are refused. There is the python way. If python 
isn't
the right tool for the job, then the best thing to do is finding
another tool, not scotch an extension to the first one.

I like python. I like D. I like other languages. Of course 
sometimes
I'd like to have, say, UFCS in python or list comprehension in D.
But D isn't the best language to do python, python is. And as 
there
is a python way, there is a D way.

This is not to say that we should dismiss any good concept of 
other
languages, but those concepts fit in a philosophy, in an 
ecosystem.