Why is D unpopular?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 05:58:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 05:45:03 UTC, rikki cattermole 
> wrote:
>> Adam's mixinC idea is much more likely to "just work" in all 
>> cases that I think that is the direction we ought to be going 
>> in.
>
> What will it look like in macro intensive code? If you end up 
> writing C then the point is lost. What do you do with macros 
> that expand function signatures followed by a body?
>
> The only solution that can work in most cases is to align D 
> more with C (or rather the oppsite) and reflect that in the AST.

You need to do the macro expansion in the lexer, then inject C/D 
context switch tokens used by the parser, then you inject C/D AST 
nodes if there are semantic differences, or annotate AST nodes 
with the differences. That way you can have a C signature 
followed by a D body.

Anything short of this is a waste of time IMHO.

The last thing the language needs is clunky interop.