On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 16:20:07 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
I did not reply (and do not intend to reply) to any of the
numerous other statements you have made in your other replies
to this thread, since they are statements about the design of
the D language and the DIP process in general, and are not
directly relevant to DIP 1038.
Well, but it is relevant to the outcome.
In C++ I find that the more are strive to write semantically
beautiful code, the less visually beautiful it becomes.
My modern C++ code is littered with ```[[nodiscard]]``` and other
attributes.
If a language that is equally capable allows me to write code
that is both semantically beautiful and visually beautiful then
that would offset some of the disadvantages with using a small
language. I think many C++ programmers feel that way.
Big opportunity that is up for grabs there.
