Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 18:16:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 10:25 PM, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
>> D's "static if" - which is a killer feature if I ignore the 
>> keyword -
>> gives me a similar feeling (though it's much less egregious 
>> than
>> "return" in monads). "static" is a terribly non-descriptive 
>> name because
>> there are so many senses in which a thing could be "dynamic".
>
> You may well be literally the only person on Earth who dislikes 
> the use of "static" in "static if". -- Andrei

Aha! But I don't! It feels intuitive, possibly the best use of 
"static". But that is immaterial, what matters is the sum of all 
meanings of "static" in this language. The "single instance per 
class" meaning of "static" is just bonkers. I've had that meaning 
burned into my brain for a couple of decades, from C++. But I 
don't have to like it!
I could stomach it, though, if that was the only use of the 
keyword. (Or if the other meanings couldn't be used in the same 
contexts).