Biggest Issue with D - Definition and Versioning

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:jetha2$2csv$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> 2. We haven't identified game designers as a core market, and one that's 
> more important than e.g. general purpose programmers who need the like of 
> working qualifiers, multithreading, and shared libraries.
>

I have to strongly take issue with this one. Let's take a look at what D 
intends to be:

A multi-paradigm, natively-compiled, systems language that's designed as a 
reimagined C++, and is better at high-level than C++, and goes every bit as 
low-level as C++.

How the fuck does that *not* implicitly say "game dev" already?

Hell, it's already *more* of a gamedev langauge than a "general purpose 
programmers" langauge anyway: General purpose programmers *already* have 
fucking billions of VM and interpreted langauges that most of them are 
perfectly happy with. What the hell do game devs have besides D? Umm, 
C++...*sort of* C# (which isn't nearly as good at gamedev as D 
anyway)...and, oh yea, that's it! If it weren't the the prospect of gamedev, 
I never would have even gotten into D in the first place.

It doesn't matter if *you've* identified game dev as a market you care 
about: D *is already* a gamedev language. And gamedev is already an *ideal* 
audience for D to target.

(And like other have mentioned: Derelict - a game oriented library - is one 
of the *oldest* still-alive D libs out there.)