Rather D1 then D2

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:22:03 UTC, new wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 10:53:25 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 09:42:48 UTC, Jonathan 
>> Marler wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be interested to hear/read about the features that some 
>>> developers don't like with D2.
>>
>> I'm going to guess it has to do with all the attributes for 
>> functions which you often have to remember is it @attribute or 
>> is it just attribute like is it @nogc or is it nogc etc.
>>
>> It's one of the things that probably throws off a lot of new 
>> users of D, because they feel like they __have__ to know those 
>> although they're often optional and you can live without them 
>> completely.
>>
>> They make the language seem bloated.
>
> the language is bloated. trying to read the source of D2 makes 
> gives you the feeling of getting eye cancer.
> so we decided if D at all then it should be D1.

Hello,

You can have a pretty much "D1" experience if you avoid new 
features:
- @nogc
- shared
- avoid constness (well except strings), inout
- alias bit = bool; // :)
- struct postblit
- etc..

AFAIK if you port D1 code the only problem is with 
immutable(char)[] instead of string, and the only thing to know 
is that immutable(T) and T implicitely convert to const(T).

D2 the language has become longer to learn, but there is a subset 
that is very much like D1. It's a matter of introducing features 
as you go, one by one.

A lot of things are objectively better like build systems, 
ecosystems, stability, meta-programming, CTFE, OPTLINK, Phobos...