What are the worst parts of D?

[Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 19:10:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:01:05PM +0000, Sean Kelly via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei 
>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >
>> >Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++
>> >compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
>> 
>> Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?
>
> Is that even addressable?? D const is fundamentally different 
> from C++
> const. Short of introducing logical const into D, I don't see 
> how we
> could bridge the gap.

I haven't really thought about it, but something could probably 
be made to work with type wrappers that do implicit casting plus 
just pretending that const is the same like we do with our C 
interfaces.  I'm also wondering how we'd handle something like:

struct S { virtual int foo() {...} };
std::map<int,S> m;

We'd have to make S a value type in D, so struct, but D struct 
does't allow virtual functions.  Maybe something weird with 
in-place construction of classes?  I suspect the more we look 
into C++ compatibility the more problems we'll find, and actually 
interfacing with most C++ code worth using will result in 
terrifying D code.  But I hope I'm wrong since C++ support is 
apparently now where all of our effort is being devoted (mark me 
down as being completely uninterested in this feature despite 
using C/C++ at work).