does D already have too many language features ?

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:59:25 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
> On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 18:45:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>>
>> I think some people have discussed on the forums before about 
>> how AST macros could be used to implement this (after all, 
>> C++'s metaclass proposal could probably also be implemented 
>> with AST macros). However, even if AST macros might be used to 
>> implement OOP as a library, I think the burden of proof is on 
>> those in favor of library solutions to show that they can get 
>> similar performance, both run-time and compile-time, and 
>> quality of error messages as the current implementation.
>>
>> Another option would be to keep classes, but implement other 
>> OOP features like interface
>> and abstract as libraries, with AST macros if needed. Perhaps 
>> less disruption.
>
> The problem with AST macros, and Walter seems to agree with 
> this POV, is that every medium to large project will have its 
> own private language that ripples throughout the code. Only a 
> few of the developers will really understand this new language 
> and how it can safely be used and where its pitfalls are. It 
> will be poorly documented and a nightmare for new developers.

That's a valid criticism. It's also odd coming from a language 
like D where "good code" is generic on steroids and extremely 
hard to work with. I've been using D for six years and still 
struggle to use Phobos at times.