does D already have too many language features ?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:01:48PM +0000, bauss via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 14:13:03 UTC, bpr wrote:
> > On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 11:22:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > > I'd do away with classes and OOP,
> > 
> > That D is just a -betterC switch away. Of course that may be cutting
> > out more than you want.
> > 
> > FWIW I agree with you about D's classes and OOP, as well as the fact
> > that it won't happen.
> 
> I'm gonna come in and say I disagree with that though.
> 
> It's a feature I use all the time.
> 
> I rarely use anything "low-level".

This is the problem with the claim that D has "too many features".  The
problem is that everyone has a different subset of features that they
consider essential, and what one considers superfluous another considers
indispensible.  So if we were to take this claim at face value, the only
reasonable solution is to split D into multiple, mutually-incompatible
dialects.  Which means (each respective) D community will become even
smaller and lacking in manpower than it already is, and it will just
fall by the wayside and die off.

A more reasonable viewpoint recognizes that programming is an inherently
and irreducibly complex task, and one cannot expect to fill every need
with only a small number of features.  Every feature is a tool for a
particular task, and it is nice to have the tool in your toolbox even if
you think you'd never need it, because one day you just might, and then
you'll be very grateful it's there.  In the meantime, there's nothing
wrong with having an extra tool or two in your toolbox.  Just use what
you need, and don't worry too much about the rest.


T

-- 
Marketing: the art of convincing people to pay for what they didn't need before which you fail to deliver after.