Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Arun Chandrasekaran]

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?

Sorry for being pessimistic, but this has already been discussed 
many times here. This is just a waste of time and it doesn't 
produce any results.

Having coded in C++ all my life, I can definitely say C++ is way 
too complex. So D can't win it in that aspect. :-)

The main thing confused me a LOT, as ketmar rightly said, was 
struct (it was not TLS, it was not static, it was not GC). Other 
than that, there are a few that I can point in D that I consider 
are complex.

* auto decoding - given that ranges are the idiomatic way, it's 
simply unacceptable.
* shared
* immutable vs const
* lack of consistency and orthogonality. Past discussions: 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/iysrtqzytdnrxsqtfwvk@forum.dlang.org

 From the perspective of language complexity, I'm already living 
with C++, so I can live with D as well. But the difficult thing 
to live with is

* Dearth of libraries (features, performance and quality)
* Dearth of libraries
* Dearth of libraries