Why do some attributes start with '@' while others done't?

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 02:13:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:48:14 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>> It wouldn't be too bad, as such things go. But it also serves 
>> little practical purpose; why break people's code for purely 
>> aesthetic reasons?
>
> 1. Because it isn't purely aesthetic, it is also a question of 
> usability.
>
> 2. Because very little code has been written in D.
>
> 3. Because D stands no chance of widespread adoption without 
> fixing the usability issues.
>
> 4. Because you can have two parsers in the same compiler, one 
> for legacy source files and one for contemporary code.
>
> The only code that will break is code that relies on string 
> mixins, which is a horrible idea anyway.
>
> But D should fix all the semantic issues first. Unfortunately 
> there is no focus on this, only on adding new features.
>
> IMHO: D is a dying language until there is a focus on bringing 
> both coherent semantics and syntax to the language. It is not 
> like adding C++ linkage without bringing semantics closer to 
> C++ will be a saviour.
>
> There is too much focus on having a wide range of 70% solutions 
> with marginal support.

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but I think 
the question of whether a few attributes have an @ attached to 
them or not ranks pretty low on the list of "70% solutions with 
marginal support" that need fixing/fleshing out. If this is truly 
among the most pressing issues with D, then D must be in great 
shape.

It seems like poor allocation of resources (both those of the D 
development team, and those of the D users who would be forced to 
update their code) to put much effort into this right now, when 
there are so many other issues of greater practical import to 
work on.