I wish I could use D for everything

[Brad Roberts]

dsimcha wrote:
>  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.

I'd like to drill into this 'd2 is a complex language' assertion more.  Can we
build a factual list of the delta of complexity between d1 and d2?

The primary area is the type system:
  1) introduction of const
      -- optional and doesn't affect callers of api's that declare const params
  2) introduction of immutable
      -- less optional since it's not as coercable, but also less frequently
used in apis.
  3) introduction of pure
      -- optional, will not affect callers of apis
  4) introduction of nothrow
      -- optional, will not affect callers of apis

Others:
5) template if clause


I'm specifically leaving out Phobos and other library layer issues, though feel
free to count the runtime as part of the language when adding to this list.

-- Brad