• Olli Aalto (3/3) Jan 08 2007 http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t87989.html
• Lutger (16/21) Jan 08 2007 There is one recurrent theme present here that I have seen in all

Olli Aalto <oaalto gmail.com> writes:

http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t87989.html

Seems that the conversation is not going very well D-wise atleast.

O.

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Olli Aalto wrote:
 http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t87989.html
 
 Seems that the conversation is not going very well D-wise atleast.
 
 O.

There is one recurrent theme present here that I have seen in all 
criticisms of D: the feature set as it appears on the language 
comparison page. I guess that people who want to get an overview of D in 
a short time find the comparison table the easiest source of information.

 From the thread on eclipsezone: "After a glance on the feature 
comparision - which I find not to be be enitrely correct, btw - it seems 
that the language design faild to hurt somebody."

People get the impression that D tries to cram as much features into one 
language without caring much for overall design. Although D is quite 
large, this is of course not true.

The comparison table serves as a quick overview and of course a 'praise' 
of D as mentioned by the wiki. But it might be a misleading / 
off-putting entry instead. At least I would suggest a stronger 
disclaimer on top than there is now and a link to the comparison table 
in the wiki.