What are the worst parts of D?

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 22:48:12 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/25/14, 2:03 PM, eles wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already 
>>> got and
>>> deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.  And 
>>> inconsistency
>>> in how things work in the language.
>>
>> The feeling that I have is that if D2 does not get a serious 
>> cleanup at
>> this stage, then D3 must follow quickly (and such move will be
>> unstoppable), otherwise people will fall back to D1 or C++next.
>
> I'm not sharing that feeling at all. From that perspective all 
> languages are in need of a "serious cleanup". -- Andrei

Those *all* languages, at least some of them, have good excuses 
(C++'s roots in C and the great advantage that is able to compile 
C code too, to some extent - history is on his side) and powerful 
driving factors (the whole might of Oracle and Microsoft). And, 
most of all, they already have a fair share of the market.

And they served a lot of users quite well and those users aren't 
ready to drop them quite easily for what happens to be the cool 
kid of the day in the programming language world.

D has to provide quality in order to compensate for the( lack of 
the)se factors.