Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[XavierAP]

On Saturday, 20 July 2019 at 11:02:36 UTC, NaN wrote:
>
> I think both can / should be done. Really nail down where the 
> end is for D2, whats in and what will be fixed. And start 
> exploratory work on D3, but it should be "only use D3 if you're 
> OK it breaking hard and often" and keep it like that 
> indefinitely. At least until the major stuff is really worked 
> out. D has often felt like living in the house at the same time 
> you're renovating it. And that isn't a good situation.

Sounds hood. But first of all D has to identify the rooy cause of 
weird shit appearing in such a young language. D has delievered 
great successes in some areas (metaprogramming, productivity, 
performance) but it compares unfavorably to any other language. 
C++ hasn't done such a bad job if you consider it's 30 years old; 
it keeps adding modern features and deprecating square parsecs of 
parse space. C# also deprecated e.g. non generic containers and 
interfaces based on System.Object, when they added generics; but 
it remains a remarkably neat language after adding any new modern 
features and syntactic sugar.