What's missing to make D2 feature complete?

[Kiith-Sa via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 17:40:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Just wondering what the general sentiment is.
>
> For me it's these 3 points.
>
> - tuple support (DIP32, maybe without pattern matching)
> - working import, protection and visibility rules (DIP22, 313, 
> 314)
> - finishing non-GC memory management

D as a language is "feature complete" enough for me as is; 
improving the compiler, fixing remaining major compiler 
bugs/inconsistencies between spec and compiler  is more important 
for me. Maybe the ability to force-inline if nothing else.

Outside the language itself:
- Phobos could obviously use some fixing
   (especially obsolete stuff without a real replacement like 
std.stream)
- a GC that doesn't suck would help
   (I see people working on that from time to time, never gets 
finished/integrated)
- A finished std.allocator would help, whether or not Phobos uses 
it internally
- std.simd
- Proposed changes with GC/RC/manual allocation in would
   be very useful, but I expect that to take a shitload of time,
   assuming it doesn't get derailed and replaced by a yet more 
grandiose
   idea (remember TempAlloc -> std.allocator -> now this - nothing 
of that
   got finished)

Also, this pisses me off way too often: a way to build 
documentation as easily as "doxygen Doxyfile" (no need to write 
own CSS to get a non-atrocious result, no messing with 
dependencies because DMD needs to import files I'm not building 
documentation with, no assuming I have a server by default, no 
generating files to feed to another program) and get a 
ready-for-use, readable, static HTML-CSS result. All of DMD/DDoc, 
ddox and harbored are too involved. (I would also prefer to have 
Markdown or ReST within DDoc, e.g. I don't find $(B bold) to be 
readable, I'll probably eventually try to eventually implement 
that myself).


.. that ended up surprisingly long.
    TLDR: language is good, Phobos needs work, doc generation sucks