Reddit: why aren't people using D?

[John C]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
>> news:h4kkn3$14pv$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> But what I want is to come with a new design that adds minimum 
>>> aggravation on the learning programmer. If they know how to define a 
>>> method, they must know how to define a property. None of that 
>>> property blah { get ... set ... } crap is necessary.
>>>
>>
>> I can't be nice about this: Any programmer who has *any* aggrivation 
>> learning any even remotely sane property syntax is an idiot, period. 
>> They'd have to be incompetent to not be able to look at an example 
>> like this:
>>
>> // Fine, I'll throw DRY away:
>> int _width;
>> int width
>> {
>>     get { return _width; }
>>     set(v) { _width = v; }
>> }
>>
>> And immediately know exactly how the poroperty syntax works.
> 
> Sure. My point is that with using standard method definition syntax 
> there's no need for even looking over an example.
> 

Which is why Steven Schveighoffer's is suggestion is the most pragmatic 
so far. You just add a "property" attribute to a regular function 
definition. (And it doesn't look ugly, unlike the opGet_/opSet_ idea.)