D - more or less power than C++?

[Johan Granberg]

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Miles" <_______ at _______.____> wrote in message 
> news:dub8id$2rn3$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> I hardly post anything to the NG, most of the time I just read to see
>> how D is maturing... but I would like to leave my opinion on this subject:
> 
> It's good to hear the opinions now and then of the lurkers, too, as they are 
> just as important as the prolific posters.

In that case here is another lurker opinion.

>> 1. const parameters and member functions
>>
>> Countless times this saved me. I just can't imagine references being
>> passed in and out of functions without something explicitly saying that
>> the function is expected or not to modify it.

You did not answer the above statement and i have seen this repeated all 
over this thread along with destructors in structs. I will not repeat 
all the arguments but to me this is important issues.
If i should rank the most showstoping things in D (from my perspective) 
it would be
1. bugs
2. as far as I know no way of inporting somthing in a parent directory 
(as C++ #include "../myheader.hpp")
3. read only sematics that work as a strong reminder that one is not 
suposed to modify somthing (but can bee subverted by a cast)
4. overlodable assignment and copy constructors.
5. library and other minor issues

>> 4. library
>> ...
> I don't find the STL compelling, either, and that's the only library thing 
> standard C++ has over libc. Furthermore, large chunks of STL are simply 
> irrelevant in D because D has core arrays, strings, and associative arrays.

I agree on this one. So wath is your plan for the D standard library?