Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, February 09, 2018 14:49:42 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:49:31PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On 02/09/2018 05:20 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > Sadly, these days it seems almost every other day somebody else
> > > stumbles into a problem to which string mixins seem to be the
> > > default answer.
> >
> > Really? That's not been my perception.
> >
> > From what I've seen, anything that requires the user to mixin a
> > string, is pretty much automatically granted the black mark of death -
> > no one will touch it.
>
> Well no, the mixin is not exposed to the user.
>
> But I do see it used quite a lot inside libraries, specifically Phobos.
> Well, "quite a lot" is not a fair statement; perhaps I should better say
> "more often than it probably should be".

Really? I don't recall seeing the often in Phobos at all. Certainly, some
stuff is best-suited to string mixins (and in the case of overloaded
operators the design calls for using string mixins in order to reduce the
number of declarations you have), but I don't recall seeing them often or
ever having the impression that they were used when they shouldn't be. But I
haven't thought about it a lot either. Personally, I just use them when they
seem most appropriate, and they usually aren't needed much unless I'm doing
something on the crazier side, which isn't often.

- Jonathan M Davis