http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/30/2014 1:27 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
> In general, I get the impression from both DIP25 and DIP69 that both are
> motivated by minimizing the change to the existing language, instead of looking
> for the most powerful solution (that may have other use-cases besides the ones
> under consideration). I.e., instead of asking which concepts are behind the
> problem in question, how these concepts could be expressed in an ideal world,
> and then making compromises to fit them into D, it seems like we're starting
> with some premises (as few changes as possible, no type modifiers), and then
> look for a solution that needs to sacrifice the smallest number of use cases to
> stay within the constraints. This is particularly bad if our premises are going
> against the nature of the problem we want to solve, because then we are
> guaranteed to get a bad solution.

On the other hand, power just because we can add it is not always a good thing. 
C macros are very powerful, but experience has shown it is the wrong kind of 
power. Also, programmers do not really want a complex annotation system. They 
want to just write code in the most obvious manner and have it work correctly. 
Having a powerful (but complex) system is not very attractive.