D vs Go in real life

[Chris]

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 14:11:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> E.g. one day D might implement features that have to do with 
>> what Facebook needs more than features that programmers need 
>> in general. So a module std.webshite.upload.latest.picture 
>> gets all the attention while std.reallyhandy is being 
>> neglected.
>
> Do you know one or two cases where this phenomenon has happened 
> to a language?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Good question! To be honest I cannot put my finger on any module 
of any language in particular. Maybe Objective-C would be an 
example where sometimes things would advance at breakneck pace in 
Cocoa, while some handy features in the standard Objective-C 
library (e.g. in NSString) would still be missing (but that's 
years ago now, I haven't used it for a while, so I dunno how it 
has developed).

Java is a good example of how (corporate) ideology (and 
management) ruins things. Everything is a class, if you don't 
want this, you create a class and declare static functions to 
turn off OOP. Well, ... You can see that people are trying to 
redefine Java, to come up with a better Java. Why is that? 
Because there is a committee that decides and won't have any 
criticism. So people say "Hold on, this is not really 
practicable, let's try something else!", and D already is the 
something else. What attracts me to D (among other things) is its 
practical approach.

Go is web-oriented, so it seems, and I'm sure it will be marketed 
as the "one size fits all" solution for web development, 
multi-core and whatnot. But D goes deeper. D raises fundamental 
questions about how a good program should look like, what is good 
/ practicable. I know that this approach doesn't sell, but it's 
the best I've ever come across. D makes you think and re-assess 
your own code time and again.