Why all the D hate?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> >> I think having a SafeD environemnt on .NET/JVM might be
> >> an interesting exercise. However, the language doesn't have many
> >> interesting new features to justify its existence on either platform.
> >
> > Don't D's compile-time introspection and generic programming abilities count for
> > something?  They're the biggest reason I use D over C# or Java, and AFAIK D is the
> > most mainstream language with a comparable level of compile time metaprogramming
> > ability.
> What we may be seeing here is an effect I noticed decades ago with the Zortech
> compiler. Let's say you have the Zortech compiler, and BrandX compiler. The
> feature lists of the two are:
> Zortech: A B C M N O S T U
> BrandX:  A B C D M N O
> Reviewer concludes that Zortech lacks features because it doesn't do D. Reviewer
> never notices S T U because he's used to BrandX and so obviously S T U are not
> relevant.
> It's a very human thing. For example, back in 1995, a friend of mine would
> interview engineers. He'd show them a cell phone, and ask them how they would
> improve it. He'd get answers that were simple refinements of making phone calls.
> Nobody suggested adding a calculator, calendar, texting, email, music playing, a
> camera, etc. It simply never occurred to them because people thought of a phone
> as a phone, nothing more.
> Back in the 80's, I knew about OOP but saw no value in it. I'd never used it,
> and had no idea how to. It certainly wasn't on any of my "it would be nice
> if..." desires for a programming language feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion