Mid-term vision review

[Pierre Krafft via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 08:01:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 6 April 2015 at 18:17:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On the other hand, many features in the language could be 
>> implementation as macro in object.d, reducing language 
>> complexity.
>>
>> Mixin has some severe limitation when you want to pass symbols 
>> that are not accessible down the road (the type mechanism in 
>> SDC is a very good example of how absurdly complex things can 
>> get just because you need to make some symbols accessible down 
>> the road).
>>
>> I'm not eager to see them in, as I'd favor finishing what is 
>> already started.
>
> Over time, while researching how macro approach feels like in 
> other languages, I have become more sceptical of providing it 
> as a generally available feature. But it could be interesting 
> to allow them only in std / core package to be able to move 
> more language implementation into library.

My opinion is that it should be addressed as a culture problem 
and not trying to limit the language. If a macro-system could be 
added it shouldn't be limited to just phobos code. Instead the 
community should look down upon over usage of the feature in 
non-library code.