Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 06:31:01 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 04:32:25 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> The name is fine. It comes from 'statically bound/dispatched', 
> that is 'resolved at compile time'.

This is a tangent from the subject of this thread, but: No, that 
just says how it is implemented, not what it means / intends. See 
"the 7 stages of naming", here: 
http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single-step/

(That resource is talking about identifier naming, not keywords. 
But it applies anyway.)