Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Ralph Doncaster]

On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 15:46:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 15:37:12 UTC, Ralph Doncaster 
> wrote:
>
>
>> I think you are proving my point.  You say there is no 
>> difference between:
>> const MAX_IN = 20;
>> vs
>> immutable MAX_IN = 20;
>>
>> So now I have to try both, and look at the generated code to 
>> be sure.
>
> Or read the docs:
>
> https://dlang.org/spec/const3.html
>
>> p.s. I prefer const since it is easier for C/C++ coders to 
>> understand.  Using immutable invites the coder to go down the 
>> whole rat hole of trying to understand how is it different 
>> than const.
>
> It's not a rathole. The document page above explains the 
> differences rather well. They only happen to be identical when 
> initialized with compile-time constants.

Well this part of the docs is a rathole to me:
https://dlang.org/spec/const3.html#implicit_qualifier_conversions

It might be clear and simple to you, but it's not to me.  And I'm 
a rather advanced developer.
While there are lots of things I like about D compared to C++ 
such as getting rid of #include hell, there's too many "messy" 
things and the learning curve is too steep for me to consider 
suggesting it for any consulting projects.  I think it could've 
been better if there was more focus on keeping the language (and 
standard library) clean and simple instead of making it more like 
a swiss army knife.