ugly and/or useless features in the language.

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 13:26:38 UTC, sighoya wrote:
> But the more general problem in D are not features per se, but 
> how they are composed of.
> For instance: Why no AST macros instead of string mixins, 
> templates, mixin templates and alias?
> All these forms could be special ast macros.

I think AST macros require a tiny core language and having most 
of the language features being implemented by macros. The D AST 
is not really suitable as it stands.

D is a bit like C++ in this regard, there might be a minimal core 
language that could be distilled from it, but it would take a D3 
full breaking change to get there, so it won't happen.

> Structs are nice but at the same time awful to use because they 
> are incompatible with interfaces and classes, I hope this will 
> change to some extent, but I think it wouldn't be that smooth.

You could probably expose classes in a form that is compatible 
with structs, but that would expose implementation details and 
give implementors less freedom.