Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 18 July 2016 at 11:05:34 UTC, Bill Hicks wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 05:50:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 02:59:42AM +0000, Nobody via 
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> 
>>> Perl 6.
>>
>> Are you serious?  Perl is the *prime* example of "unprincipled 
>> and complex".  Larry Wall himself said (in print, no less):
>>
>> 	English is useful because it is a mess. Since English is a 
>> mess,
>> 	it maps well onto the problem space, which is also a mess, 
>> which
>> 	we call reality. Similarly, Perl was designed to be a mess,
>> 	though in the nicest of all possible ways. -- Larry Wall
>>
>>
>> T
>
> 1. Perl 6 is not Perl.
> 2. Perl 6 is better designed language than D will ever be.
> 3. Perl 6 is complex, but not complicated.  I think people 
> sometimes confuse the two.
> 4. D is a failed language, regardless of how people choose to 
> categorize its attributes.

There are some interesting discussions about Perl 6[1][2]. They 
remind me of the discussions about D. Apart from some irrational 
points (the logo!), the fact that it took 15 years figures 
prominently - and people complain about its features that were so 
carefully designed. I don't know Perl 6 and cannot comment on the 
validity of that criticism.

[1] 
http://blogs.perl.org/users/zoffix_znet/2016/01/why-in-the-world-would-anyone-use-perl-6.html
[2] 
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Perl-6-considered-to-be-a-disaster