the point of selective importing

[Walter Bright]

John Reimer wrote:
> Several dedicated people here are making these import suggestions based on lots
> of time and experience putting D to use in large projects.  It becomes more
> evident, in that context, why D is NOT the same as Java, C#, C++, and why it
> shouldn't be the same, even in the context of namespaces. It's a complete
> mistake to try to cast D in the same mold as those languages, whatever Walter
> keeps saying.  D maintains a different aura and seems to invite a new style, all
> evidence of a healthy evolution of a language.

It's easy to demonstrate the utility of feature X if it has a proven 
track record in other languages. If it does not exist in those other 
languages, the case for X must have a significantly higher bar to get over.

It isn't just me that has to be convinced. D, in order to broaden its 
audience, must appear to have a solid collection of useful capabilities. 
If people get the impression that it's a grab bag of not-so-useful 
features, it will fail.

Features that are the best of what are in other major languages are an 
easy sell. Features that are unique to D are a much harder sell. For 
example, template mixins are unique to D and are a hard sell. There 
isn't much of an obvious track record for what they can do. Ddoc exists 
for other languages, and is a slam dunk. Everyone gets it right away.