Why I chose D over Ada and Eiffel

[Ramon]

On Sunday, 25 August 2013 at 22:27:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's also clear to me that unless D achieves performance parity 
> with C++, D is not going to be considered for a lot of 
> applications.
>
> The good news is that I believe that D is technically capable 
> of beating C++ on performance.

That is probably true for a large part of the existing and 
potential clientele.

But while performance *is* important to me, my concern happens to 
not be performance to the max but rather the reliability aspects. 
Gladly, D delivers - and delivers quite well - in that regard, 
too.

As for performance, maybe I'm plain old-school, i.e. falling back 
to asm (or C as a cross platform "asm") for those few really 
critical sections.

 From what I see around here, it seems that D still has quite some 
minor quirks. With all respect due (and well deserved) I consider 
it more important to get D really stable and well rounded. 
Actually, I think, D can afford some time to beat C++ in 
performance because thanks to it's asm capabilities, it's build 
in coverage stats and some other goodies, there always *is* some 
solution for performance.

But then, maybe D's beauty in part lies in the fact that it 
offers a lot regarding safety/reliabilty - and - very nice 
performance, too ;)