Andrei's list of barriers to D adoption

[David Soria Parra via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:05AM +0100, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 06:24 +0000, Mithun Hunsur via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
> > […]
> 
> > The problem is that D is targeted as a multi-paradigm systems 
> > programming language, and while it's largely successful at that, 
> > the GC doesn't fit in with that domain by nature of its existence.
> > 
> > There's no problem with _having_ a GC, it just shouldn't be the 
> > default case for what's meant to be a systems language, 
> > especially when language and standard library features become 
> > dependent upon it.
> 
> No. As evidence I give you Go. The whole "it's a systems programming
> language so it cannot have GC" is just so wrong in 2016 (as it was in
> 2004). Having a GC for a time critical real-time streaming application
> is probably a bad idea, so turn GC off for that. D can do that.
> 

Go is the perfect example here. The traction that Go has and D has not doesn't come from GC
or not, it comes from accessible documentation, easy installation, good libraries and community support.

New developerse will give a language 10-60min max, if it is compelling and you feel productive and
decently fast then you are set.

sure there are outlines where you watn to replace C++ or C, but those areas are much harder to get
traction on due to dependencies in the existing architecture and a (correctly so) risk-aversity.