== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article > Ok, then we'll introduce balanced budget amendment for types to ensure > this doesn't happen. For every new type added one must be removed. > We're going to vote complex types off the island, right? Maybe we > could get rid of associative arrays as a built-in too. > --bb
Aren't builtin complex types on the way out anyhow? (See http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_complex.html). I always found them to be quite peculiar, as they really only are useful for a niche within a niche. Specifically, noone outside scientific computing (already a small subset of programmers) would use them, and even then, only a subset of scientific computing people need them. I personally do scientific computing (specifically bioinformatics, which for those of you who aren't familiar with the field is mostly stochastic models and data mining as applied to molecular biology), and I have never in my life used D's complex numbers. My guess is that Walter, having a mech e. degree, drastically overestimated early in D's design how many people actually use complex numbers. I know enough mechanical and electrical engineers and physicists to know that they simply love complex numbers.
