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

[TheSixMillionDollarMan]

On Saturday, 1 September 2018 at 12:33:49 UTC, rjframe wrote:
> 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?

Stroustrup also said, that "achieving any degree of compatibility 
[with C/C++] is very hard, as the C/C++ experience shows."

(reference => http://stroustrup.com/hopl-almost-final.pdf  (2007)

(and here refers to D on page 42 btw - that was 11 years ago now).

And yet, D is very intent on doing just that, while also treading 
its own path.

I personally think this is why D has not taken off, as many would 
hope. It's hard.

I think it's also why D won't take off, as many hope. It's hard.

Stroustrup was correct (back in the 90's). Yes, it really is hard.

Made even harder now, since C++ has evolved into a 'constantly' 
moving target...