Is D still alive?

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 1/28/11, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires a
> significant investment of effort by the programmer. It's too easy to not
> bother.

Another way to look at it is that programmers are enjoying the safety
of using regular D so much as to not even think about using DbC. The
language does guarantee a lot more than C++. The irony here is that
C++ is the one that desperately needs integrated DbC, and yet D, the
safer language, is the one providing DbC for free. :p

In other words, we get the candy and the cake.