Feedback for this editorial cartoon

[James Lu]

On Monday, 27 January 2020 at 00:19:56 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> [...]
> So one of the more prominent examples of successful use of D 
> within the enterprise happens to have conditions that were 
> quite extreme in relation to your reasons not to use D, and yet 
> their lived experience was quite different.  An anomaly like 
> that might make one think about what's missing.
>
> [...]
> You don't necessarily need to port C++ libraries to use them.  
> D does have extern (C++) - it's by no means perfect and has 
> rough edges but it is usable.  DPP will work for some things.  
> If you're really good with C++ you can write tools to generate 
> wrappers automatically using libclang, libtooling or cling.
>
> And supposing you did have to do a one-off port or writing of 
> manual bindings/wrappers.
>  That's an upfront cost that in economic terms can be amortised 
> over the life of the project.
>
> [...]

I want to add a "scope of usefulness" axis and a "LANGUAGE for 
PURPOSE" icons to the picture.
> [...]
> I think D is unusual in its range.  So a comparison of D versus 
> C++ might be appropriate in some cases, but in others it's D 
> versus C++, python, Perl, bash and VBA!
> 
> [...]

I agree with the sentiment that "D vs. Not C++" sentiment. I 
would rewrite the Node.JS game I maintain in D instantly if there 
were a trustworthy concurrent moving gc available, and if I could 
get a standalone compiler binary to run without entering sudo.