Why I'm Excited about D

[ixid via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 18:34:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 18:01:53 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> On 4/7/15 2:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 08:58:57 UTC, ixid wrote:
>>>> Or to be more consistent with UFCS:
>>>>
>>>> foreach (name; names.parallel) {
>>>>   name.writeln;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> no.please
>>
>> wat
>
> unreadable.is.ufcs.using.over

UFCS doesn't give you yoda speak. It's more consistent to use it 
for single as well as multiple function chains and it's cleaner.

Some users' distaste for UFCS cramps D's developing its own 
consistent idiomatic approach. Do you have any argument for your 
dislike that isn't just personal preference? You're fine with 
names.parallel but for some reason balk at name.writeln?