What are the worst parts of D?

[Cliff via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 24 September 2014 at 05:44:15 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:59:53 -0700
> Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> I understand quite thoroughly why c++ support is a big win
> i believe it's not.
>
> so-called "enterprise" will not choose D for many reasons, and 
> "c++
> interop" is on the bottom of the list.
>
> seasoned c++ developer will not migrate to D for many reasons 
> (or he
> already did that, but then he is not c++ developer anymore), 
> and "c++
> interop" is not on the top of the list, not even near the top.
>
> all that gory efforts aimed to "c++ interop" will bring three 
> and a
> half more users. there will be NO massive migration due to 
> "better c++
> interop". yet this feature is on the top of the list now. i'm 
> sad.
>
> seems that i (we?) have no choice except to wait until people 
> will get
> enough of c++ games and will became focused on D again. porting 
> and
> merging CDGC is much better target which help people already 
> using D,
> but... but imaginary "future adopters" seems to be the highest
> priority. too bad that they will never arrive.

Why does anyone have to *wait* for anything?  I'm not seeing the 
blocking issues regarding attempts to fix the language.  People 
are making PRs, people are discussing and testing ideas, and 
there appear to be enough people to tackle several problems at 
once (typedefs, C++ interop, GC/RC issues, weirdness with ref and 
auto, import symbol shadowing, etc.)  Maybe things aren't moving 
as swiftly as we would like in the areas which are most impactful 
*to us* but that is the nature of free software.  Has it ever 
been any other way than that the things which get the most 
attention are the things which the individual contributors are 
the most passionate about (whether their passion is justified or 
not?)