D easily overlooked?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 15:55:14 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
> The issue of D is not the pure language but this strange over 
> focus on being the next C++ replacement that nobody is asking 
> for! There are already a lot of other languages that can do C++ 
> things, namely C++!

Once upon a time D claimed to be a cleaned up and more convenient 
C++ style language, but I don't think it moved in that direction 
after the onset. So I don't view it as a C++ replacement, but 
more like an enthusiast language that more people toy with than 
use in production. If D actually moved to take on C++ then that 
would be sensible strategy, but at this point there is just too 
much baggage and C++ is now much more of a moving target than it 
was 10 years ago. So, D cannot assume that goal, as C++ is moving 
faster than D at the moment...

> There are just too much things where D is lacking but people 
> there is simply a lack of flow.

Well, you have to match ambitions to the resources. I think Go 
made the right decision there, to scale the language to something 
they could get to relatively stable in a reasonable amount of 
time, then work on the runtime. Not sexy, but useful.

> And the end result became, i gave up on D. Switch to the 
> freaking old Pascal language and got more stuff done in a few 
> days time, then the semi-months with D. How strange it may 
> sound.

Why Pascal, and not one of the more contemporary languages?