[vthriller]

> My point is that "standard" code is infinitely more readable than either c++ or rust.

Still I'm struggling to see any code that is significantly more readable because of D's design decisions, or details on what makes D more readable than $lang (especially compared to modern C++/Rust that you seem to despise so much).

[WalterBright]

1. Template syntax. For example, a struct template in D is:

    struct S(T) { ... }

A function template is:

    T func(T)(T t) { ... }

2. No forward reference declarations required. This cuts down on a mass of unnecessary boilerplate. Even better, it allows the coding style of ordering the functions from most important to least important, rather than the reverse that is typical of C/C++ source files.

3. Terser declarations:

    ulong x;

instead of:

    unsigned long long x;

4. No ugly #preprocessor code interspersed with your nicely formatted code.

5. Nested functions mean they can be nestled close to where they are used rather than much further away in the file.

6. None of that awful

    #ifndef __INCLUDED_FOO_H
    #define __INCLUDED_FOO_H
    ...
    #endif

[vthriller]

I already find function template syntax (1) a bit more confusing because of consecutive parentheses (I can get used to it pretty easily, but it will always be a bit slower to read), and 2–6 does not make me want to convert to D from Rust.