What is the D plan's to become a used language?

[Vic via Digitalmars-d]

I think you nailed the argument.

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 09:36:00 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 19:11:53 UTC, Vic wrote:
>> Second smaller thing I 'elude' to but don't verbalize in that 
>> argument is my personal preference for a smaller language. 
>> Less is better/faster.
>
> I think this is the main reason why we have different 
> perspective on necessity of change. Smaller language simply 
> means that you need to put more complexity into actual 
> applications and while D looks all cool at the first glance 
> trying to get deeper (== implement BIG projects) inevitably 
> makes you encounter fundamental design quirks that affect 
> maintenance costs. Deadlnix has provided pretty good list of 
> suck problematic points.
>
> While there is some value in splitting the spec into core 
> language and extensions I don't believe it is wise for D to 
> compete in simplicity domain.

Core and extensions/ plugins is a way to manage complexity and 
resources. I cite some 'random dude' 
http://www.codingninja.co.uk/best-programmers-quotes :
"Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming."

I am a user of D, and I need something stable to lean on - if I 
don't know the bug is what I wrote or what the compiler wrote, it 
gets harder.

Further D does not have choice but to be excellent (via 
simplicity) - there is not enough paid maintainers. (Struts what 
I worked w/ before was written in 48 hours and had several 
million 'users/developers' using it). So the pain of limited 
resources forces excellence.

D does not have a choice but to make GC a DI/IOC - it will happen 
as the only choice, popular or not. People can be upset about the 
sacred cow or be confident of the outcome. I am in the second 
case.
Alternative is death and I am optimist the committers will be 
forced to trim down.

Vic