Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[rjframe]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:36:19 +0000, Ralph Doncaster wrote:

> Frankly, I think it is doomed to be a niche-use language.  While many
> more things were done right compared to C++, too many things were done
> wrong and there doesn't seem to be interest in breaking backward
> compatibility to excise them from D.

Yes.

If the current "let's get C++ programmers to like us" stuff continues, 
some of these problems will have to be fixed. I'm expecting C++20 to be a 
nice language for new projects, where you can ignore a lot of the blech 
(though not quite enough of it), and moving to C++20 will be easier than 
moving to D. The ROI just won't be there for most people (for many, it 
doesn't seem to be there today...).

I'm not sure that being a niche language is a bad thing; if we just say, 
"this is D; if you like it come and use it, come help make it better, but 
if it doesn't help you -- that's OK. There are other languages too" -- we 
may have more freedom to explore what D can do best. I've done compile-
time stuff in D I would never have even considered attempting with C++ - 
and I haven't done nearly as much as others here. I don't think we've 
really explored the fullness of the language yet, and I wonder if that's 
only going to be possible if we quit comparing ourselves so much to C++.

My code still looks a lot like C and Python; it doesn't look like D yet. 
If we keep setting our sights on C++/Rust/whatever, we're going to 
artificially limit ourselves to their limitations, and that would be sad.