A D vs. Rust example

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 21 October 2022 at 10:42:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Yeah, but the ecosystem doesn't swallow anything, that is the 
> problem.

Please stop saying it is an ecosystem issue. That is not they key 
thing that prevents adoption. This is just a sleeping pill that 
makes people go for apathy believing that they cannot change the 
trajectory. Which is wrong.

The main issue with D is not lacking an ecosystem, D has an 
ecosystem that can grow and that allows you to be productive in 
system level programming. System level programming does not 
require a gigantic eco system.

But D is adding new stuff to a code base that is difficult to 
evolve rather than focusing on design issues people complain 
about. The core difference is that C++ and Rust are clearly 
showing in their releases that they are working on compensating 
for design flaws that people care about.

The main issue for D is a lack of strategy that involves 
architecting a modern D compiler, that people want to work on, 
and an objective strategy for selecting design issues that needs 
to be addressed.

Without a solid strategy you can neither get rid of design issues 
or grow in a predictable manner.  For an outsider D as a project 
looks more like a one-man-person-with-entourage than a 
cooperative effort. This does not grow confidence in the project.

Rust and C++ are much less about any singular entity, but more of 
a collaborative effort. That is good for confidence and for long 
term viability and evolution.

It is great for D that there is a foundation now, but has it 
really changed the structure of the project, and how strategies 
are formed, to any significant degree?