Does D have too many features?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nvvuxboigxxfdqfhyftw at forum.dlang.org...
>
> To be honest, I don't like the idea of member functions at all. Having two 
> syntaxes for calling a function is the core problem, and UFCS is just an 
> extra complication on top of it to try and mitigate the original problem.
>
> f(x) ---> x.f() is not progress in language design.
[...]
> I'm serious. I don't like overloaded syntax.  foo.bar shouldn't also mean 
> (*foo).bar -- it causes confusion and introduces ambiguities when either 
> could work. Combine this with opDispatch, UFCS and function overloading 
> and your in for some nasty headaches.
[...]
>
> Glancing at that code, it looks like foo has two member variables. It is 
> also not clear that each access involves a hash-table lookup.

It sounds like you just simply don't like abstractions. I can understand 
that (although I don't agree with it), but it always puzzles me why such 
people even try to use high-level langauges at all instead of just binary 
machine code.

And for the record, I've *never* seen anyone confused by foo.bar syntax 
being used on reference types.