D Language 2.0

[Walter Bright]

dsimcha wrote:
> This is a great point and deserves to be highlighted:  D was meant to be a better
> C++, not a better C.  If someone won't use C++ instead of C (apparently there are
> a decent amount of these people), then there's not a snowball's chance in hell
> they'd use D, even if we fixed the binary size issue, made D more usable without a
> GC, and in general made it in every way at least as efficient as C++.

D executes code every bit as efficiently as C++ does. Any variations are 
due to which back end is used, not the language.

I agree with your point that people who are wedded to C and won't look 
at C++ will not look at D, either.

Also, if you're only writing a few K of code, D's advantages aren't that 
compelling over C (and neither are C++'s). It's when the size of the 
program increases that D's strengths really begin to dominate.