I wish I could use D for everything

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> bearophile wrote:
> > D doesn't reduce training time compared to Java because I think you
> > need more time to learn D compared to learning Java, because Java is
> > simpler (and at the university they teach Java, so you are likely to
> > find/hire a person that already knows Java, but this is partially
> > beside the point).
> I agree that Java is easier to learn than D. But that's all lost when
> you have to write a lot more code to get things done because Java lacks
> power.
> It takes 10 years, however, to learn C++ and it still takes longer to
> write C++ solutions than D solutions.

To me a fair assessment of whether a complex feature belongs in a language is the
following:

Given the target audience, will the average person save more time by using the new
feature than he/she spends learning it?

The assumption here is that you will have to learn most or all of the features of
your language of choice, because you will have to understand other people's code.
 D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way.  It's complex
because it statically proves stuff about your code (const, etc), and allows
extremely powerful, generic user-defined types.  These are the kinds of things
that most people only dream about.