Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Jeff Nowakowski]

On 06/09/2011 03:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> So he flat out *states* that he passed over D and gave Issue 9 a try
> *because* of what was done decades ago by one of the people involved.

OK, I missed that, because I searched for "Pike" in the article, and he 
mentioned Thompson. Your post didn't mention anybody explicitly by name, 
except for "that Issue 9 guy". Considering that Pike has been the face 
of Go, it was a reasonable assumption.

You still didn't need to pass judgment on what is notable or not in 
their later careers. It's enough to say that dismissing D as being 
"irrelevant" without justification is the problem.

Also, there's nothing wrong with taking a look at a C-like language 
because the inventors were heavily involved with the original C and Unix 
environments. Much like people are encouraged to look at D because of 
Walter's past work with a C++ compiler and Andrei's C++ experience. As a 
way to pique interest, it's valid. However, that should not be a 
determination of a language's actual merit.