Has D failed? ( unpopular opinion but I think yes )

[silentwatcher]

On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 10:19:10 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 09:56:48 UTC, Nierjerson wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 07:35:05 UTC, Tofu Kaitlyn wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Yes D has failed if the goal is wide adoption. It will never 
>> gain wide recognition and use because the D community fails to 
>> realize that it's more than just the compiler and libraries.
>>
>> [...]
>
> This seems to be a quite pessimistic view based on wrong 
> information. There are definitely succesful companies using D 
> for their applications or additional tooling.

mini crap

>
> Some of these companies you can see in the list on dlang.org, 
> some others do just not announce which language they use, they 
> simply use the best language for the job, which is D.
>
> Kind regards
> Andre

but i understand you, i didn't want think about the dying process 
of my mother either.
the gentleman above was wright:
D has no decent gui, gui designer, no decent audio library, no 
decent graphics library, no decent anything. The D community 
thinks that if it has a binding then it must be the same. 
Bindings are not solutions.
Most programmers don't give a shit about meta programming and all 
the cool shit D can do. So what is the point of them using it 
when most other things suck?