Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Timon Gehr]

On 09.02.2018 19:34, Seb wrote:
> On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 18:21:55 UTC, Bo wrote:
>> Here are a few more "basics" that are unneeded or confusing. Lets not 
>> even talk about the more advanced features like inout, ...
>>
>> /-/
>>
>> * auto: Static typed language yet we fall back on the compiler to 
>> figure out what is being assigned. Can just as well have a interpreter 
>> language. It only encourages lazy writing and has a penalty on the 
>> compilation.
> 
> There's almost zero/no penalty on the compilation cost.

On top of that, the penalty is _negative_. If there is no type 
specified, there is no overhead to check that it matches the type of the 
initializer. I can find zero ways in which the above criticism of "auto" 
makes any sense.