A possible future purpose for D1

[Walter Bright]

Bane wrote:
> On the other hand, D2 carries more complexity than D1, more power at
> a greater risk of potentially more dangerous programs (due to
> programmers fault). As Language D homepage states, D aims to balance
> simplicity and power. Seems to me D1 leans to first, while D2 to
> second. I see place for both in this world for making both small and
> large programs.

Actually, I think D2 is a much safer language than D1.

The fundamental problem with simple languages is that they tend to push 
the complexity off upon the user source code. Whenever you have an IDE 
that generates many lines of boilerplate at the push of a button, that 
is a red flag that the language is too simple.