Is there an intention to 'finish' D2?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 10:54:46 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> Perhaps I used a bad word there. My point was that you're 
> painting it as if only committed long-time users would give 
> specific, helpful feedback and everyone else who bothers to 
> give feedback would just be demanding changing everything at 
> once.

Did I?

> A 'la "D's GC is sad story, none will remain using it since C# 
> has better GC and D can't do that so D should drop GC".

I think I've said that one should listen to what issues people 
have that make them reluctant to use D as a tool for their use 
case, but not necessarily adopt the solution they propose.

D's ecosystem is suffering because people are reluctant to go all 
in. They have fun with it for projects that are small in scope, 
but hesitate to do large things with it.

For instance, I started yesterday to fool around with Skia in 
order to make a simple application framework for my own use. I 
hold the option open for making it work with D, but it won't be a 
priority as long as there is no vision for D as a solution that 
is better than C++ across the board (for that use case).

> Even an inexperienced user ought to recognize that the language 
> isn't written just for them and the language maintainers can't 
> satisfy everyone, but they have better chances to satisfy 
> small, realistic requests.

It is possible for D to be an alternative for C++ for more users, 
but then adjustments have to be made on many issues. Not *big* 
changes, but adjustments to make it a clear improvement across 
the board over C++. Without that, D is perceived as somewhat 
different, and that is not enough.