What are the worst parts of D?

[Brian Rogoff via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 13:49:00 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> I've recently used Rust a bit and the curse of D users as of 
> 6-7 years ago reached me: most code I download online doesn't 
> compile for obscure reasons, it's nigh impossible to figure out 
> what the fix is from the compiler error message, searching 
> online finds outdated documentation that tells me the code 
> should work, and often it's random name changes (from_iterator 
> to from_iter and such, or names are moved from one namespace to 
> another).

That's more than a bit unfair. Rust's developers have made it 
abundantly clear that things will keep changing until version 
1.0. If you want to play with some Rust that's guaranteed to 
work, go to

http://www.rust-ci.org

and find a bit code that interests you which isn't failing, and 
then download the nightly. The docs on the Rust home page are 
either for a fixed version (0.11.0) or the nightly. Let's wait 
for a bit of time after 1.0 is out before you critique the 
annoying changes; they deliberately are developing in the open to 
get community input and avoid getting stuck with too many 
mistakes (though it looks like they are stuck with C++ template 
syntax, ugh!). So far, I haven't found it too hard to update 
code, and they've been good at marking breaking changes as 
breaking changes, which can be searched for with git.

In the case of D, the main D2 book was published 4 years ago and 
that should correspond to Rust 1.0 or even later, since D already 
had a D1 to  shake out the mistakes and bad namings. That's gone 
perfectly, with no code breakage between releases during those 
four years, right?