What the hell is wrong with D?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 19:16:05 UTC, EntangledQuanta 
wrote:
> The D community preaches all this safety shit but when it comes 
> down to it they don't seem to really care(look at the other 
> responses like like "Hey, C does it" or "Hey, look up the 
> operator precedence"... as if those responses are meaningful).


jmh530 points out why you're met with such non-agreement of the 
issue. You're not open do discussion of why it is implemented in 
the fashion it is. Instead it is an attack on the community and 
Walter as though there is no logical reason it is implemented in 
the way that it is.

Sure you can express that it is illogical to have made that 
choice, but that requires first know what used to make that 
decision.

For example one of the original principles for D was:
If it looks like C it should have the same semantics or be a 
compiler error (note this was not completely achieved)

Now if we look at other languages we see, they implement it the 
same as C or they don't implement it at all. Just based on this 
it would make sense to choose to implement it like C if it is 
desired to have.

The suggestion I made fulfills this, but it also slightly defeats 
one purpose of the operator, being terse.

We also now need to keep backwards compatibility, this fails.