Does D have too many features?

[foobar]

On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 00:40:01 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 23:50:22 UTC, foobar wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 21:02:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>> * di files - a library should encapsulate all the info 
>>>> required
>>>> to use it. Java Jars, .Net assemblies and even old school; 
>>>> Pascal
>>>> units all solved this long ago.
>
>> I agree with the general notion here. Whatever the actual 
>> implementation details are, the API should be strongly tied to 
>> the binary in order to insure consistency and ease of use. I 
>> shouldn't need to worry if the header files match the binary 
>> library. Regarding the human readable API - that's why we have 
>> documentation for.
>
>  Mmm well the main reason I see using .di files, is cases when 
> the input library/file/dll doesn't give you much or any 
> information. like... most dll's today. There's also tools to 
> strip that extra debugging and structure information from your 
> output file, so if you distribute a binary only, you still need 
> to include it's .h file or .di file.
>
>  Cases where this would be far more relevant could be in 
> systems that don't have a lot of room (mini-distros or recovery 
> disks for example). I've seen a recovery disk distro with 
> everything you needed 2 floppies disks. Only reason I don't use 
> floppies anymore is the ones being made are crap and don't keep 
> data where as 14 years ago I could accidentally put mine 
> through the wash and still access it's contents. (Cheap 
> bastards)

floppies, are you for real?!
This is only relevant if you travel a decade or so back in time.
The current generation dvd/Blu-ray discs and USB sticks aren't 
good enough for you?