[kllrnohj]

D vs. C++ in this list of examples looked equivalently complex and equivalently power-user focused. static if not introducing a new scope seems like the sort of confusing, error-prone edge case that trips up newcomers, for example. We are taught very early on that in C-style languages curly braces means a scope. Except here in D in this particular case for some reason it's not that isn't clear why until you are very deep into understanding the language.

Similarly operator overloading via a string that tells you what you are overloading seems... insane? Very error-prone & complex?

Not that C++ is great here or anything, but it seems disingenuous to claim D's complex thing is for everyone while C++'s nearly equally complex thing is too complex for everyone.

[p0nce]

> Similarly operator overloading via a string that tells you what you are overloading seems... insane? Very error-prone & complex?

Frankly you should try D for just 5 minutes and see for yourself, because no it is really sane and works well. Never seen anyone complain about this...

See here it is used to implement all operators for small vectors in 46 lines: https://github.com/d-gamedev-team/gfm/blob/master/math/gfm/m...

[kllrnohj]

It appears to only be primarily useful if you are writing a pure wrapper class where you proceed to delegate to an actual implementation.

But you could still do that and not be string-based. It could (and should!) be an enum of the operator instead. opBinary takes a fixed number of ops, but the parameter type of string has an infinite number of values.

Whether or not the design of having a single operator overload method is a good idea or not is independent from what I'm specifically calling insane which is that the parameter type to that method is a string.

[p0nce]

If it is string-based meta-programming you find ugly (as many do as first), consider the alternatives are maybe not much better in practice.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/l5srs7$2m3$[e-mail]