does D already have too many language features ?

[bpr]

On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 16:01:48 UTC, bauss 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.

That's fine.

> It's a feature I use all the time.
>
> I rarely use anything "low-level".

If classes/OOP was something I used all the time, and I rarely 
used low level features, I'd use a different language than D 
(Java/Scala or C#) and reap the benefits of a better GC and 
larger community. I prefer the Lisp influenced "OO" designs (some 
will say they aren't OO) that have multimethods, like Clojure and 
Julia.

I'm looking forward to all of this work that Mike Franklin is 
pushing for a "pay as you go" D, because for me, D's OO does not 
pull its weight.