Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:23:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>
>> Please don't try to make yourself look like a martyr.
>
> Huh? Where is that coming from all of a sudden? Sorry, I don't 
> see the point of this comment.

You were going ad hominem for no good reason. Here is a pretty 
good rule: if you don't think you will get something out of an 
discussion, don't engage in it. I personally find that I learn a 
lot from discussions on language design, even when other people 
are completely wrong. You have your own view of what is needed, I 
have a completely different view. You cannot impose your view of 
what is need on me, it won't work without a good argument to back 
it up.

My view is that the position that some are arguing holds: the 
core language has to be stripped down of special casing in order 
to make major progress.

Aka: one step back, two steps forwards.

If it makes you happy: I am from time to time looking at various 
ways to modify floating point behaviour, but it won't really 
matter until complexity is cut back. Because it could easily 
become another complexity layer on top of what is already there. 
The best way to improve on D is not to add more complexity, but 
to cut back to a cleaner core language.

I think you are taking a way too convenient position, somehow 
pretending that there are no major hurdles to overcome in terms 
of mindshare. My view is that mindshare is the most dominating 
problem, e.g. changing viewpoints through arguments is really the 
only option at the moment.

What other options are there?