If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Walter Bright]

Mike Parker wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
>>
>> D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most 
>> definitely NOT open source.  Parts of it are licensed for use in an 
>> open way, but not all of it.
> 
> Does that really matter? Why so pedantic? In a lot of conversations you 
> could substitute 'DMD' in place of 'D' and it makes sense. I don't care 
> if it's open source or not. Java wasn't for a long time (though it kind 
> of is now), but it still didn't matter to people who said 'Java' when 
> they meant 'JDK'. I'm not saying I agree with it, that it's right, 
> wrong, or anything. All that matters is what's in someone's head when 
> they type 'D'. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't make it untrue.

I should also point out that David Friedman has just updated GDC to be 
equivalent to DMD, so there is a fully, 100% open source D implementation.