Why D const is annoying

[Mehrdad]

1. Wouldn't your solution
   (a) Be telling the programmer, "you *can't* lazy-load const objects"?
   (b) Require duplicating the code 3 times? (Yes, you can factor it out as 
a mixin, but who wants to do that??)

2. "Some folks that like lazy loading such as this seem to have come to the 
conclusion that they should just pretty much never use const, because it's 
too restrictive for they want to do."

Yes, that's **exactly** why I've said 'const is broken' for at least a year 
now, but it seemed like people objected to my conclusion...

The trouble, as I just showed, is that it isn't.
"Lazy-loading" and caching aren't exactly obscure or rarely-used concepts --  
which seems to be the way they are portrayed here. They are *bound* to be 
used in any nontrivial program.
So, if D doesn't let you use those techniques without 'hacking around' the 
language, then it doesn't matter how awesome D is otherwise -- C++ 
programmers _simply won't_ switch to D, and other programmers will 
definitely have trouble using const, immutable, shared, etc...

In other words, my point with this entire thread was:
These issues need to get *fixed* at some point on the _theory_ side. Who 
cares if the implementation takes an extra year or two to be finished? If 
it's wrong in theory, it's never going to be right in practice.
And it looks to me like there is no real clean 'fix' for this issue in D... 
the only solutions are along the lines of using C-style casts in C++ to 
throw-away const-ness, and we all know that isn't an actual solution...

3. Okay I'll try to avoid resurrecting threads in the future, thanks for 
letting me know. :)