> It's inelegant
We obviously disagree with the coding organization we prefer, so I find that rather elegant, but this doesn't sound like a substantial discussion. You as the language author are obviously quite content with the choices D made.
> This is inelegant because all other types do not need a prefix.
I don't find that. It makes it rather possible to clearly distinguish between transparent and opaque types. That these are a separate namespace makes it also possible to use the same identifier for the type and object, which is not always a good choice, but sometimes when there really is no point in inventing pointless names for one of the two, it really is. (So I can write struct message message; .) It also makes it really easy to create ad-hoc types, which honestly is my killer feature that convinced me to switch to C. I think this is the most elegant way to make creating new types for single use, short of getting rid of explicit types altogether.
> It also makes it clumsier to refactor the code (adding or subtracting the leading `struct`).
I never had that problem, and don't know when it occurs and why.
> The typedef workaround is extremely commonplace.
In my opinion that is not a workaround, but a feature. I also use typedefs when I want to declare an opaque type. This means that in the header file all function declarations refer to the opaque type, and in the implementation the type is only used with "struct". This also makes it obvious which types internals you are supposed to touch and which not. (This is also what e.g. the Linux style guide recommends.)
> This isn't what you want to see - you want to see first the public interface, not the implementation details.
Maybe you, but I don't. As in C public interface and implementation are split into different files, this problem doesn't occur. When I want to see the interface, I'm going to read the interface definition. When I look into the implementation file, I definitely don't expect to read the interface. What I rather see is first the dependencies (includes) and then the internal types. This fits "Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious." . Then I typically see default values and configuration. Afterwards yes, I see the lowest methods.
> people tend to organize the code backwards, with the private leaf functions first and the public functions last.
Which results in a consistent organization. It also fits how you would write in in math or an academic context, that you only use what is already defined. It makes the file readable from top to bottom. When you are just looking for a specific thing, instead of trying to read it in full, you are searching and jumping around anyway.
> Oh, there is a looong list of kludgy problems stemming from a separate macro processor that is a completely distinct language from C. Even the expressions in a macro follow different rules than in C. If you've ever used a language with modules, you'll never want to go back to #include!
A macro language is surprising for the newcomer, but you get used to it, and I don't think there is a problem with include. Textual inclusion is kind of the easiest mental modal you can have and is easy to control and verify. Coming from a language with modules, before learning C, I never found that to be an issue, and rather find the emphasis on the bare filesystem rather refreshing.
> but in practice, why would one want a module name different from its filename?
True, I actually never wanted to include a file with spaces, but it is something where your concept breaks. Also you can write #include "foo/bar/../baz" just fine, and can even use absolute paths, if you feel like it.