Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Meta]

On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 07:54:49 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> I like D, but sometimes it's look like for me too complicated. 
> Go have a lot of fans even it not simple, but primitive. But 
> some D futures make it very hard to learning.
>
> Small list by me:
> 1. mixins
> 2. inout
> 3. too many attributes like: @safe @system @nogc etc
>
> Which language futures by your opinion make D harder?

I can't say that I've ever really found D complicated. I think 
the main reason for that is because my first language was C++, 
and there's really nowhere to go but up from there (I was 
experienced with a few other languages as well like Java, Scheme, 
Basic, etc. but none I would regard as complex).

I think the perception of D being complicated is more from 
programmers coming from Python/Ruby/JS (and to a lesser extent, 
Haskell/Scheme/Java). D is quite different if you're coming from 
a "VM" or "scripting" language because it exposes you to a lot of 
new concepts such as static typing, value types, templates, 
monomorphization, immutability, memory layout, linking and 
compilation, compile-time vs. runtime, etc. It's not that these 
programmers are less skilled or less knowledgeable; it's that if 
they've never used a language that has forced them to consider 
these concepts, then it looks to them like D is a massive step up 
in complexity compared to the language that they're used to.

I think if you asked 100 C++ programmers whether they thought D 
was a complicated language, 99 of them would say no. If you ask 
100 Python programmers, 99 would probably say yes.