Doesn't GC, @nogc, safe, nothrown, * get in the way of getting things done?

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 11:28:07 UTC, aberba wrote:
> In D we have so many programming models and I'm noticing this 
> has become a problem in itself.

Yes, chances are you can't use a library because you are using a 
particular subset.
On the plus side, being limited in 23rd-party deps is good for 
debt control.

> So unless its a third party library deciding to go with 
> whatever they want, its going to end up in an impossible to 
> match up to the technical expectations of everyone.
> What becomes the ideal trade-off??

For a while it has been: ignore pure, ignore shared, ignore 
nothrow, avoid const, ignore @safe... and then you can actually 
get things done in D.

D needs to keep being appealing to practical minds and remove 
stuff that isn't bringing enough value, quickly.

Anytime I say this, someone says "but pure has practical 
applications" but I strongly dispute the validity of the 
afore-mentionned features, they are just feelgood features that 
(for a few) occasionally found a bug or two.

If people came to D for being  able to think about their problem 
domain, then less cruft is going to make D an even clearer 
language.