Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 00:14:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/8/2016 2:58 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 21:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2016 5:56 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> While this very true, it is clear that most D's complexity 
>>>> doesn't come from
>>>> there. D's complexity come for the most part from things 
>>>> being completely
>>>> unprincipled and lack of vision.
>>>
>>> All useful computer languages are unprincipled and complex 
>>> due to a number of
>>> factors:
>>
>> I think this is a very dangerous assumption. And also not true.
>
> Feel free to post a counterexample. All you need is one!
>

Lisp.

>
>> What is true is that it is difficult to gain traction if a 
>> language does not
>> look like a copy of a pre-existing and fairly popular language.
>
> I.e. Reason #2:
>
> "what programmers perceive as logical and intuitive is often 
> neither logical nor intuitive to a computer"

That's why we have compiler writer and language designers.