does D already have too many language features ?

[JN]

On Thursday, 11 April 2019 at 22:21:30 UTC, Julian wrote:
> Do I get the impression that D is actually harder to read, 
> though?
> Not yet. That's a feat of language design -- that even though 
> there
> are many pieces, they fit together well enough that you focus on
> the whole rather than the parts. Bad example: it's easy to 
> think of
> an esolang that's enormously simpler than D, but with code you'd
> have a much harder time having to understand than typical D 
> code.

For me the toughest part of D is dealing with heavily templated 
code. Documentation often uses auto for those. Unfortunately IDEs 
don't always help with templates, so often I am stuck with an 
object and I don't even know what is the type of it and what I 
can do for it. Without example code, I am usually stuck. Also, 
many routines return something like Result!(Foo, Bar). In these 
cases it's recommended to use auto, which is OK for local 
variables, but if you want to pass the result to some other 
function - good luck figuring out what is the actual type of the 
variable so that you can declare it in the function parameters 
list.