Anonymous lambdas instead of comprehensions, delegates instead of closures. D does not have decorators in the sense Python does, well function attributes might come close. What I do enjoy in D syntax-wise is UFCS: https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/uniform-function-call-sy...
Array slicing, ranges, compile-time execution. Probably the most succinct and easy-to-read syntax out of many compiled languages. It's an investment (as with any other language) but the learning curve is not steep if you get scared away by C++ or Rust for that matter. Julia comes to mind too in terms of syntax but no UFCS and its interoperability with C++/C looks like a lot of work compared to D.
True. I forgot about implicits (because I try not to use them :).
Unfortunately it looks more like a kludge tbo. Sort and uniq get also hidden in a class which can be tucked away from your eyes and this is never good.
Anyways, since Walter is probably reading this: Any new insights around this quote five years later?
> I know a lot of the programming community is sold on exclusive constraints (C++ concepts, Rust traits) rather than inclusive ones (D constraints). What I don't see is a lot of experience actually using them long term. They may not turn out so well. –Walter Bright
Yes, they are frequently compared. If you like style-insensitive (case insensitivity, underscore ignored) languages with hacker mentality, Nim is for you. This is simply a no-go for me. I briefly tried Nim before even knowing about D and it never stuck with me due to awkward syntax (subjective). Later I learnt that Nim (being a younger language) frequently breaks backward compatibility. Maybe it changed now but all the above was enough to pass it and move on.
The way to interpret that statement IMO is that D is a good alternative to using a scripting language. I use it that way all the time - it's almost completely replaced Ruby, which was my previous scripting language of choice.
