The proper case for D.

[grauzone]

> So the better direction according to some is to stagnate language design for 
> D2 so Walter Bright can reinvent the linker? So that years later when asked 

No, but to use a real linker instead of that piece of crap.

> why D didn't do more for concurrency when it was needed, you'd have to 
> reply: "well there wasn't any time to deal with such trivial issues, the 
> language designer had to work on the toolchain."

Eh, you seriously think D2 would still be in use at that time? We will 
have D325858 which broke backwards compatibility for the 325858th time. 
This issue (multithreading) seriously could wait a bit longer. The most 
hilarious thing is that multithreading support in Phobos was incredibly 
buggy, and even today, basic multithreading primitives like condition 
variables are lacking from Phobos. Oh yeah, we got builtin mutexes so 
that we can say "D supports multithreading on the language level". Funny.