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

[silentwatcher]

On Saturday, 13 April 2019 at 03:46:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/12/2019 5:25 PM, Suleyman wrote:
>> I think the problem with D is that it started getting a mass 
>> adoption and this requires a bigger management, for example: 
>> regular user polls, prioritization, concentration of efforts, 
>> friendly contribution guides, time limits on issue 
>> resolutions, regular health stats, coordination with sponsors, 
>> maybe even a podcast especially for what would be a lightning 
>> for introducing libraries and new features... etc. D is no 
>> longer a niche language and this is a problem.
>
> Something you can do to help is as I said - when you see other 
> languages mentioned, mention D. It helps a lot more than you 
> might think.

great, you are avoiding to talk about the problems again.
how about:
The sole reason that D has failed is the management of D has 
failed... and, of course, they will never accept that truth. They 
believe their methods are correct and working and the failure is 
not due to them. D is actually an old language and there are many 
new languages popping up like weeds... eventually D will not be 
so shiny and more and it will just become another weed. That is 
already happening actually.  As many languages modify their 
designs to include what was great about D, D becomes less 
attractive.

or

Now there is talk of re-writing D, after the umpteenth half baked 
feature was introduced. We'll see, we'll see. IMO, the trouble 
really started when the D Foundation was set up. Instead of 
streamlining and stabilizing D, the whole thing turned into a 
closed shop with a "Hey, we are the lads" kinda attitude, and any 
CS theory or fashion of the day would finally be half baked into 
the language without a second thought. Without paying attention 
to users and the answer to complaints would be "we want to turn D 
into a functional style memory safe [...] language, that's why we 
had to introduce RefFancy, so eff your code!", except it still 
isn't and RefFancy has to be removed or replaced! Who would have 
guessed it would be at loggerheads with FancyRange!?

or

And apart from all the fancy feature madness, there's this 
arrogant attitude towards users. To avoid criticism my words were 
twisted in such an obvious and blatant way that it was just 
ridiculous. And what's really funny is that mistakes made by the 
leadership, and the leadership alone, are now being socialized as 
in "the community this, the community that, and this has to 
change!". Ah, give me a break.

or

See, it is not that D itself is a bad language, it is that the 
whole atmosphere surrounding it, how it is managed, is the 
problem. Some things are done well but others poorly, eventually 
those things that are neglected will catch up because the 
community seems to care not one bit about them. The cracks are 
getting bigger and bigger, I'm sorry you can't see them.

or

On one point I agree: It's time to get rid of all the wrong 
decisions done in the past, and simplify the language, founding 
it over the strong points learned from D2.
It's time for D3.

or

The attitude "We will not cater to the mass of moron programmers" 
has hurt D, possibly been the one thing that is killing it.

or ....