Why aren't you using D at work?

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 31/05/2015 3:03 p.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> so is std.xml the exception? How many other parts of the standard
> library are like that?
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 2:27 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 02:17:59PM +1200, Rikki Cattermole via
>>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 31/05/2015 11:37 a.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> The Standard Library. I want to use D so I can do more with less
>>>>> hours writing code and less hours debugging code. Having a high
>>>>> quality standard library really helps this - unfortunately for me the
>>>>> first thing I needed from the standard library was xml parsing, which
>>>>> the documentation tells me is sub par and will be replaced in the
>>>>> near future, There is no indication of what I might like to use
>>>>> instead. Do I now use one of the other xml libraries floating around,
>>>>> bind a C based one or roll my own. All this eats into the efficiency
>>>>> that I am gaining by virtue of D being a really nice language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahh std.xml, it's been that way for years.
>>>> We NEED to get that replaced. Although don't hold your breath :/
>>>
>>>
>>> What we *really* need, like almost everything else in D, is for somebody
>>> to get sufficiently provoked by the sorry state of the current std.xml
>>> to write something better and push it through the review process. Until
>>> then, further discussion is unlikely to make any difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> T
>>>
>>
>> That's a given at this stage.
>> I've read the XML spec, its almost as bad as x86. Okay not quite but still.
>> That's how far I got.

std.json I believe and maybe one or two others. But std.xml is the one 
without a real clear alternative in the D ecosystem.