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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Sunday, 14 April 2019 at 18:09:16 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> Rust, is that "modern" runner up and heavily promoted, the 
> language that is safe and is going to solve everything. I 
> disagree, I think it will not pick up because as soon you try 
> to do something more outside the box you will hit a brick wall.

Probably true. Too high level without providing high level 
convenience.

> among other like C#, Java, Ruby on so on. If look at Python, 
> the success is really because it is so simple, intuitive, easy 
> to find information, massive library support, the complete 
> opposite of Rust why I think it is a dead end.

Python has also improved with (optional) static typing 
capabilities.  I am sure many people run Python on embedded 
devices without telling anyone...

> It is clear that C/C++ has a massive code base and users, 
> that's why these languages are on top and no other language 
> seem to even approach their usage. Many companies are hugely 
> invested in C/C++ and that's why they must continue.

Not only that, but hardware manufacturers provide support for 
them...

> Nim, has some of this.

Compiling to C is a good option, but Walter has always been very 
much against it.

> Rust goes nuts if you talk to any other language.

Really? It interfaces with C doesn't it?

> If you look at the other languages (except C/C++) do you still 
> think D has failed? I certainly don't think so, it is right 
> there among the competitors.

A system level programming language is not a success until at 
least one notable manufacturerer or consulting company supports 
it in some way. IMHO.