New Features [was Named multi-imports]

[Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:33:18 UTC, Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 03:37:39 UTC, rikki cattermole 
> wrote:
> But then that only helps with one specific instance. D is full 
> of language features, I do not see why everyone is so against 
> them. Without them, D would be empty, nothing, and no one would 
> use it. Adding language features should be see as something 
> good, cause without them, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Its an important challenge of software development, and a number 
of articles out there about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+cost+of+features&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

At first glance I wasn't finding anything which uniquely tackles 
compilers and languages.

Backwards compatibility isn't just for programming languages but 
can be more important.

A good UI can help a user with complexity. So does consistency. 
Adding a syntax for special meaning can be difficult to remember. 
My personal example is properties in C#. The syntax is straight 
forward and clean, but only recently have I been able to remember 
how to write one: ReturnType Name { get { return a; } set(value) 
{ a = value; } }

As for your specific suggestion I think it would be nice at times 
but the complexity you haven't specified is how do deal with 
ambiguities if two modules provide the same symbol name.

D may have a number of features which C++ doesn't and visa versa, 
the complexity of the language for C++ to have those features 
means I work with D and not C++.