Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 20:01:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 11:49 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> In C++, the compiler has to reload x, because it may have 
>> changed.
>
> That's right. I learned that the hard way, when the original 
> optimizer would assume that x hadn't changed. It broke a 
> surprising amount of code.
>
> It also means that the utility of const in C++ is extremely 
> limited.

Walter, I hope you were just in a rush. Because I think you meant 
to say, "the utility of const in C++ for *optimizing code* is 
extremely limited". If you really think that the optimizer is the 
primary audience for language features, then ... well that would 
surprise me given D's design, which generally seems quite mindful 
of "humans are the primary audience".

Though at times I do feel people use "auto" when they should 
state the type they expect (because then the compiler could help 
detect changes which break intent, that might otherwise compile 
just fine).