D community's view on syntactic sugar

[Sjoerd Nijboer]

On Saturday, 16 June 2018 at 05:48:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
> But short of that...no sugar is likely to happen anytime soon 
> that isn't library-based, I'm genuinely sorry to report :(

Most of these just seem like an easy win on the attractiveness of 
D.
Big benefits of language based sugar is good tooling and 
debugging support.
Not only would that make the language more attractive to 
outsiders who did have those things in other languages and refuse 
to use D whitout, but if properly implemented limit the strain on 
the brain of the programmer which opens up D to a new set of 
programmers.

The reason I don't like library support in particular because you 
can't alway rely on a library, they take some time setting up, 
and maybe the open source project you're contributing to doesn't 
want libraries whatever how small.
When people do use a library there is always licencing to think 
about and maybe, just maybe they chose a library you're already 
familiar with and you won't have to re-learn known concepts from 
a different library. (This last one is a real dealbreaker for me)

Maybe in time, if a particular library is proven to be superior 
over existing syntax it'll get language support.
But with the mantra "fast code, fast" I'm frankly kind of 
disappointed that such desicions weren't done before.

I realize I missed out on some very usefull libraries and I'll 
look in to them and most likely start using them, but untill most 
of these things are implemented I still have this sour feeling in 
my mouth.

Maybe some syntactic sugar will solve that. :P