What are the worst parts of D?

[Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 19:08:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 12:00 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 18:57:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
>> Digitalmars-d
>> wrote:
>>> Or, if you'll allow me to paraphrase it, pay the one-time 
>>> cost of broken
>>> code now, rather than incur the ongoing cost of needing to 
>>> continually
>>> workaround language issues.
>>
>> Don in this very thread. Multiple times.
>
> He made a few good and very specific points that subsequently 
> saw action. This is the kind of feedback we need more of. -- 
> Andrei

And here we go again for the multiple alias this: I'm pleased to 
have seen that it will be merged sooner than later.

Just to clarify, taking as an example our company:

- TDPL is a very good training book for C++/Java minions, and 
turns them in, well, not-so-good-but-not-so-terrible D 
programmers. It solve the "boss" perplexity about "there's 
basically no markets for D language programmers: how can we hire 
them in the future?".
For the chronicle, the next lecture is the EXCELLENT "D 
Templates: a tutorial", of Philippe Sigaud, an invaluable 
resource (thank Philippe for that!).

- TDPL is exactly what Dicebot wrote: a plan! Having to bet on 
something, a CTO like me *likes* to bet on a good plan (like the 
A-Team!)

- Being a good plan, and an ambitious one, as a company we 
scrutiny the efforts devoted to complete it, and that set the bar 
for future evaluation of the reliability of _future_ plans and 
proposal.

As an example, the *not resolution* of the shared qualifier mess, 
has a costs in term of how reliable we judge other proposed 
improvements (I know, that may be not fare, but that's it).

I'm not telling that the language must be crystallised, and I 
also understand that as times goes by, other priorities and good 
ideas may come up.

As a company, we don't mind if we are discussing about ARC, GC, 
or C++ interop, but we care about the efforts and time placed on 
the _taken_ decision, especially for the  _past_ plans, and we 
judge that care as strictly correlated to language maturity for 
business adoption.

Just my 2c... again, no pun intended! ;-P
---
/Paolo