What is the D plan's to become a used language?

[Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d]

19-Dec-2014 18:08, deadalnix пишет:
> On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 14:38:02 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
>>> As for Walter already saying "no" a lot, given how many features D
>>> has, obviously one can still wish he went from 99% "no" to 99.5%. ;)
>>> You don't need to be around the D community forever to feel that D
>>> still has too many features that made it in.
>>
>> Care to name a few and justify why exactly those features should be gone?
>
>   - lazy . It is completely unable to interact with all qualifier code
> that run should be able to have.
>   - scope in its current state. Do not ensure anything.
>   - in and out parameters.

+1

>   - optional parenthesis. They cause confusion and great language
> complication in their current form.

Unless there was a way for author to enforce one way of writing it. 
Which gets us to some useful @properties.

>   - Non first class functions. Useless baggage from C and C++, which
> only benefit are to complicate the situation with optional () and cause
> a large part of the standard lib to go banana when passed a non first
> class function via alias parameter.

>   - inout. Completely underpowered for its cost, ambiguous and can cause
> compiler crash in some ambiguous cases.

I too never understood the appeal of inout. Not only interfaces now 
allow template final functions but also the bolierplate is easily 
removed with (template) mixins.

>   - most of traits. They are completely inconsistent, for instance, some
> return aliases, some return strings and there is no way to really know.
>   - __parameters. Yes, this is a keyword.

That's just baggage that's far less destructive.

> That is what you get you add half assed feature to solve an immediate
> problem, but don't look at the broader picture.



-- 
Dmitry Olshansky