I've gone through about seven sessions in the archived livestream videos and here are some quotes that stood out for me.  Share your memorable quotes, for those deciding what to watch.

"Normally, I'd have somebody in the company say, 'OK, what can I do in D that I can't do in C++?'

Every time, I'd tell them, 'You can save time.'

That's the big thing with it, and a lot of the code you can just set up and it just works behind the scenes and requires no programmer maintenance _at all_ and no programmer boilerplate code is just insane compared to C++."
Ethan Watson at 1:04:30 mark in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/86359657

"CTFE is really a hack.  You can see that it's a hack, it's implemented as a hack.  It is the most useful hack that I've ever seen, and it is definitely a hacker's tool to do stuff that are like magic.  But to be fast, it would need to be heavily redesigned, reimplemented, possibly executed in multiple threads, because it is used for stuff that we could never have envisioned when it was invented.

Like, it was more like this accidental thing, 'Yeah, you have this mixin and you can do stuff with strings' and this feature, CTFE, just turned out to be so useful and so heavily used, which was probably never anticipated.  So what should be made better about CTFE is _all of it_.  We need to reimplement it properly and then it will be really great."
Stefan Koch at 2:13:35 mark in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/86364066

On 8 May 2016 at 04:25, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> "CTFE is really a hack.  You can see that it's a hack, it's implemented as a hack.  It is the most useful hack that I've ever seen, and it is definitely a hacker's tool to do stuff that are like magic.  But to be fast, it would need to be heavily redesigned, reimplemented, possibly executed in multiple threads, because it is used for stuff that we could never have envisioned when it was invented.
>
> Like, it was more like this accidental thing, 'Yeah, you have this mixin and
> you can do stuff with strings' and this feature, CTFE, just turned out to be
> so useful and so heavily used, which was probably never anticipated.  So
> what should be made better about CTFE is _all of it_.  We need to
> reimplement it properly and then it will be really great."
> Stefan Koch at 2:13:35 mark in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/86364066

I probably wouldn't use the term "hack", instead I'd use an analogy along the lines of:

CTFE is a bit like a Morris Minor, sold everywhere initially,
comfortable to ride, and reliable so long as you didn't ask for too
much from it, and weren't on a deadline to get from A to B.
However after some time, people started wanting to use it for driving
off-road. So then after some talks, it was decided that we'd replace
the wheels with those of a tractor, and everyone rejoiced that we can
now go directly up a mountain, rather than skirting down the edges.
But those happy days were short-lived, and suddenly everyone not only
wanted to go off-road, they also wanted the ability to drive around in
the river and oceans too.  Again some talks ensued and it was decided
that a marine propulsor engine would replace the  be added at the
front, however due to size dimensions it ended up sticking awkwardly
out of the bonnet.
And so once again, everyone rejoiced at the new frontier of being able
to get around, but as time wore on and people settled down, suddenly
there were those who had a family, and were unhappy that there was no
room to fit all members in.  Now at this point, it was too late to
replace the entire body with one that was ergonomically friendly to
accommodate more members, but after some trials, the designers settled
on bolting four seats to the roof.

I could go on about how we gave this Morris Minor wings allowing people to also fly in it, but I think you should already be getting a clear picture of where this going.  :-)

http://i.imgur.com/BAiJKUS.png

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 at 09:01:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I probably wouldn't use the term "hack", instead I'd use an analogy along the lines of:
>
> CTFE is a bit like a Morris Minor, sold everywhere initially,
> comfortable to ride, and reliable so long as you didn't ask for too
> much from it, and weren't on a deadline to get from A to B.
> However after some time, people started wanting to use it for driving
> off-road. So then after some talks, it was decided that we'd replace
> the wheels with those of a tractor, and everyone rejoiced that we can
> now go directly up a mountain, rather than skirting down the edges.
> But those happy days were short-lived, and suddenly everyone not only
> wanted to go off-road, they also wanted the ability to drive around in
> the river and oceans too.  Again some talks ensued and it was decided
> that a marine propulsor engine would replace the  be added at the
> front, however due to size dimensions it ended up sticking awkwardly
> out of the bonnet.
> And so once again, everyone rejoiced at the new frontier of being able
> to get around, but as time wore on and people settled down, suddenly
> there were those who had a family, and were unhappy that there was no
> room to fit all members in.  Now at this point, it was too late to
> replace the entire body with one that was ergonomically friendly to
> accommodate more members, but after some trials, the designers settled
> on bolting four seats to the roof.
>
> I could go on about how we gave this Morris Minor wings allowing people to also fly in it, but I think you should already be getting a clear picture of where this going.  :-)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/BAiJKUS.png

Seconded.
As I said, the problem is not CTFE itself, the "problem" is that it enables a completely new paradigm. When this new way of meta-programming is used alot the current implementation cannot hold up.

I am committed to transform CTFE from a neat toy, into a polished product.
If anyone thinks the same please, contact me, because then we can avoid duplicated work and frustration.