Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)]

On 02/09/2018 04:58 PM, rumbu wrote:
> 
> It's not about how nice is a solution, it's about how easy is for 
> someone to find out about a language feature and use it. D has a library 
> solution for everything that is missing from the core language instead 
> to include in the language well proven patterns.  That's why is 
> complicated: one must learn about fibers, ask himself why in the world 
> he must use std.concurrency to obtain a list of numbers and so on. Even 
> the cluttered ((){ will scare a potential learner.
> 

I agree with this. Though I understand why it ended, I miss the days 
when D was more open to language enhancements. Library solutions are 
often possible, and better then nothing, but by necessity they're also 
frequently sub-optimal (design-wise) as well. One of the most common 
offenders is that all that ((){ *is* visual clutter compared to other 
langauges' takes on equivalent ideas.