Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 09:29:27 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 20:12:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> And please note that this horrible excuse is propagate in the 
>> C++ community too. Time and time again people claim that C++ 
>> is complex, but it has to be like that in order to provide the 
>> features it provides.
>>
>> Not true for C++.
>>
>> Not true for D.
>
> Your suggestion for static analysis goes the same way: static 
> analysis is way more complex than D currently is, but you 
> suggest it must be this complex?

Not sure what you mean.

1. It is more time consuming to write an analysis engine that can 
cover convoluted machinery than simple machinery.

2. It it more difficult to extend complex machinery than simple 
machinery.

3. It is more work to figure out adequate simple machinery to 
describe complex machinery, than just keeping things simple from 
the start.

Not very surprising that experienced language designers try to 
keep the core language as simple as possible?