Moving back to .NET

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 13:38:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
> too long. But as I said before, it's only from D that users 
> expect perfection, other languages are accepted as they are, 
> warts and all.

I don't think that is true. It has been common among C++ users to 
build custom libraries with very little use of the standard 
library. C++ has never been accepted with warts and all. It is 
just C++ was the only option next to C, so people have rolled 
their own _gradually_ moving from C towards the C++ feature set.

Like, I wrote my own array reference library in the spring, but I 
am now replacing it with a C++17 prototype array_view since an 
implementation is available from Microsoft now.

What has made C and C++ tolerable is that they are very adaptable 
languages with very few deliberate constraints and runtime 
requirements.  A problem for D today is that D1 was originally 
deliberately constrained, which made perfect sense when the 
language was small (just like it makes sense for Go today).  But 
D2 is deliberately open, yet D2 has added features without 
redefining the core language from D1 first. It is possible to fix 
it, by defining a minimal D language and move everything else to 
libraries, but not without breaking backwards compatibility.

C/C++ are stuck in the 70s as far as memory goes, but D is still 
undecided. Leaving the field totally open for Rust who is moving 
quite fast AFAICT.