A better way to deal with overloading?

[Profile Anaysis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 09:47:48 UTC, Bauss wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 00:02:03 UTC, Profile Anaysis 
> wrote:
>> Many times we pass compound types(non-primitives) as arguments 
>> to functions.
>>
>> [...]
>
> This is going to be a no from me. It's just another syntactic 
> sugar that doesn't really have a purpose, but more syntactic 
> confusion. We have enough of that stuff in D if you ask me.

Do you realize

1. That without change there can be no progress?

2. Everything is syntactic sugar. The only way to increase 
efficiency is to create higher level abstractions.

If people with your mentality rules the world we would still be 
using sticks and stones. This is a fact... I won't argue whether 
it would be the best thing or not.

At any point in the progress of humans people can say and do say 
what effectively what you are saying.

Without people ignoring you and pushing the boundaries humanity 
would not be where it is at.

e.g., "I disagree, punch cards are all we need.". "Tubes can do 
anything. There is no use in trying to control them with 
automation, we have hands for that". "The stone wheel has served 
us for centuries, it has proven reliability. There is no need to 
try to make it better".

Because you think such a syntax(one that hasn't even been created 
yet) will somehow be detrimental to your progress is insanity.

1. You have no way to judge the syntax since it hasn't been 
created yet. Hence you have to be against all syntactic sugar, 
which I already pointed out, is everything. Hence you are 
actually against progress in the big picture, including your own.

2. You are not forced to use syntax extensions. If you are able 
to continue doing exactly what you did before there should be no 
need to be against it. It's like saying you are against cars 
because you want to walk. Well, no one is stopping you from 
walking by them having a car.

[Your only argument is that the syntax(e.g., the car) is 
detrimental to you in some innate way that it's mere existence 
forces you to be have in an undesirable way. This isn't an 
argument though as I could use the reverse for my side. (e.g., I 
need a car to do things I need to do)].