D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)

[rjframe]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:35:45 +0000, Joakim wrote:

>> * Language complexity
>>
>> Raise your hand if you know how a class with both opApply and the
>> get/next/end functions behaves when you pass it to foreach.
>> How about a struct? Does it matter if it allows copying or not?
>>
>> The language was built because C++ was deemed too complex! Please see
>> the thread about lazy [1] for a case where a question actually has an
>> answer, but nobody seems to know it (and the person who does know it is
>> hard pressed to explain the nuance that triggers this).
> 
> By this rationale, C++ should be dead by now. Why do you think it's
> fatal to D?

It's worth noting that C++ isn't always chosen for its technical merits. 
It's a well-known language whose more or less standard status in certain 
domains means it's the default choice; C++ is sometimes used for projects 
in which Stroustrup would say it's obviously the wrong language for the 
job.

D is far more likely to require justification based on technical merit. If 
D becomes another C++, why bother taking a chance with D when you can just 
use C++, use a well-supported, commonly-used compiler, and hire from a 
bigger pool of jobseekers?