does D already have too many language features ?

[Alex]

On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 09:46:06 UTC, adam77 wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I started using D as an alternative to Java, what attracted me 
> to D was the robust memory management (including the way arrays 
> are handled), and interoperability with C (specifically 
> libraries) so far so good, but almost every language out there 
> (maybe with the exception of C) seems the eschew language 
> stability in favour of adopting whatever the latest fad is in 
> programming languages features. I see on forums for a number of 
> languages how features like lambda's or auto properties are 
> essential to their language or if they are missing some feature 
> how its a major detriment to the language. I sometimes wonder 
> how a Turing machine could ever manage...
>
> I'd be interested to hear other peoples opinion, does the 
> language have enough features? is it already overloaded with 
> features ?
>
> Any help will be appreciated!

What you believe is nonsense. For one a Turing machine is a 
mathematical abstraction. It doesn't have to be convenient nor 
expressive.

The whole point of features is to reduce complexity. All these 
abstractions are to make manage complex problems. If they simply 
were to complicate things then we would all still program on 
punch cards.


1. No one is requiring you to use any language feature. You can 
program in assembly in D if you want, so you have that choice. 
It's true that the library does use some extended language 
features, but you don't have to use the library either.

2. Language features exist precisely to make certain types of 
problems easier to comprehend and easier to solve. If you never 
face those problems then you won't understand why those features 
were implemented.

3. Maybe the problem is that you yourself lack the intelligence 
to understand the features enough to understand why they exist? 
What is more likely, that you are you know what is best for 
programmers or people who have programmed 100x as much as you in 
far more complex situations knows more? This is not a personal 
attack, just a fact. Serious, for you to say that X is useless 
requires that you have some higher intellectual standing than 
those that say it is useful. Else it is far more likely that you 
cannot comprehend it's usefulness because you haven't 
learned/experienced enough about it.

After all, there are billions of people that think programming is 
useless and they don't touch it but I'm sure you would disagree 
with it. If we use your logic then it means their opinion is 
actually valid.

Imagine if the world was run that way? We'd still be living in 
caves.

A person that doesn't have extensive knowledge of something can't 
possibly understand the use of that knowledge. It's moronic and 
ridiculous to think it is possible. It's like a person blind from 
birth claiming they understand sight more than someone that can 
see.

5. More features allows one to have more options to solve a 
problem. What if you had to program using punch cards abut you 
knew there was a better way to do it, would you be happy? Would 
you be content knowing that a problem that would take you 5 mins 
in D would take you 5 years using punch cards?

It's ALWAYS better to have more options than less, assuming 
everything else is equal. Why? Because who says you have to use 
those options? That is why they are called options.

6. Make sure you are not coping out on learning how to actually 
program. Is it that these features really just confuse you and so 
instead of having to learn them you rather they just disappear?

7. No feature is *necessary*. We could all program in binary. 
Features exist SOLELY to abstract. If a problem can't be solved 
in binary then it can't be solved with any features on top 
because everything goes compiled down to binary at some point in 
some way.


What it sounds like to me is that you are saying "I'm confused by 
all these gadgets and so I think they are not necessary". If you 
spend a 10th of the time actually learning why these things are 
useful and how they are used you will actually realize how 
important they are.  Your argument is no different than someone 
coming in and saying "I think we should program with punch cards 
because is a compiler is just a bunch of fancy pancy stuff that 
we don't need".

Really, you are saying that wether you realize it or not. How 
many programming languages have you used?

See,

8. Language features have nothing to do with stability. The 
features themselves do not make a compiler stable or less stable. 
True that they correlate but that has nothing to do with language 
features but the quality of the programmers that implement them. 
So your argument is moronic: meaning you do not understand enough 
about programming to realize your argument makes no sense.  I'm 
not trying to offend you, I'm trying to get you to realize you 
don't understand as much as you think about programming and so 
the gaps in your reasoning are due to your ignorance(it is the 
same for everyone, not just you, but the problem you posted here 
is a problem of your ignorance in programming and so the only 
solution is to be honest with you about it).


The only way to help you is to try to convince you to actually 
learn these features. Meta programming in D is AMAZING. It is 
light years ahead of most other compilers and it can turn a 
complex problem in to a few lines of code. The compiler 
implementation itself is not amazing and the grammar is not 
amazing, but the "options" that it gives a person is amazing. No 
other compiler comes close to having all these capabilities to be 
used. Some functional languages such as Haskell are better in 
some ways but they lack in others. D is a good balance of 
providing superior "features" to procedural programming and there 
is no other language out there that compares(some are popping up 
though and C++ is taking a lot of D's ideas).

If you learn these features you will become a better programmer 
and understand what it's all about and be more informed to 
understand. You cannot possibly judge something intelligently 
that you don't understand. It makes no sense to do so. What you 
are looking for is someone to prove to you why they are important 
so you can learn them and if they can't you will justify to 
yourself not spending the time to learn them... unfortunately 
that is not how life works.  You must learn these things, have 
some faith they are useful since they obviously are rather 
popular, and then you will add the tools to your bag and 
eventually you will be able to properly use them.

If, for example, I give a hammer(or say fire) to a money in the 
jungle, they will take it, bang it around a little then toss the 
hammer thinking it utterly useless. They don't give themselves 
time to learn how to use it and what it is useful for. This is 
why we force children to learn by going to school, because it is 
biological to not do something that one believes to be useless.

Remember, no one is forcing you to learn these features... it's 
up to you to decide if you want to broaden your programming kung 
fu. What you will find in the D community(besides a few assholes) 
is virtually everyone here loves D for it's language features. I 
imagine the reason you are coming to D is because you actually 
are ready to learn new things in programming(sort of the 
universes way of guiding you). The more you fight though the more 
difficult it will be.

There are several good "books" about D. I suggest you read them 
and familiarize your self with how D works by those who use it 
and it will get you far more up to speed then trying to program D 
like you do Java.

And, BTW, D might not be the language for you... but you 
ultimately won't know until you actually learn it enough to make 
a truly informed decision. Ultimately you have to take a gamble.

Personally, I might suggest you go learn Haskell. Or better, you 
could learn both. Every language will have it's pro's and con's. 
Language features are never a con.