Overall? Without a doubt. But these specific features they've been adding are implemented very unnecessarily strangely just to avoid fully committing to them, so that they end up in this design space where they may not be weirder than the full Lovecraftian horror of the equivalent C++ feature, but they are much weirder than the ideal/abstract concept of the equivalent C++ feature, which is what I wish they would have pulled in. Like, looking at this proposal, it isn't clear to me at all how the compiler is actually compiling or the runtime is executing these polymorphic function calls at all, in cases where they don't just collapse to void*. And it isn't clear to me how exactly type scoping and substitution works either. Whereas in concept at least templates are crystal clear and also easy to expand to do much more advanced macro-less metaprogramming, like D does.

> and often think some parts are weird simply because they are different.

I have way more experience with C than C++, but I'm usually a Rust programmer which works more like C++ so maybe that's where my bias is, but I really think this implementation is unnecessarily weird in general too — I've used a lot of languages.