Operator overloading or alternatives to expression templates

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 14 September 2015 at 19:35:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Furthermore, having arbitrary designed-in irregularities is not 
> comparable to implementing a system whose emergent behavior is 
> not understood sufficiently well. (D is guilty of both, but the 
> former is much easier to fix than the latter.)

Well, D1 was a restrictive design that made C++ style programming 
simpler and less error prone (sans compiler bugs). D2 is a 
flexible and complicated package and thereby those restrictions 
cause disharmony. It is basically too incompatible design 
philosophies that are brought together.

Like in D1 it would make sense to say "the language provide the 
essentials, don't design your own pointer types", whereas in D2 
it makes sense to say "all features should be library based". I'm 
a bit miffed that it is difficult to built proper smart pointer 
types in D2.

> Both C++ and Scala have accidentally Turing-complete type 
> systems.

Yes, not sure how smart that is in terms of maintainable code. 
There is a reaction against overdone type systems that sometimes 
can be more of burden as programs age/grow (e.g. C++/Boost), so 
now we see gradual typing, deliberately unsound type-systems etc.