Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 04:13:07 UTC, Meta wrote:
> I agree with Walter here. Scheme is not a language that you can 
> generally do useful things in. If you want to do anything 
> non-trivial, you switch to Racket (which is not as minimalistic 
> and "pure" as Scheme).

Define what you mean by a useful and clean language? I take 
useful to mean that it has been used for useful programming. And 
clean that it follows a principled and coherent design.

Both Scheme and Pascal are useful. Scheme is also elegant. For 
any reasonable definition of "useful" and "elegant".

If you compare D to other languages you'll find a wide array of 
languages that are useful and way more principled than D.

"useful" is not a good excuse for not cleaning up a develpment 
environment.