How D could gain more traction?

[XavierAP via Digitalmars-d]

So many good ideas and points posted. Something should come out 
after this discussion...

On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 14:07:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> I think maybe a modular approach is better, to have different 
> profiles:
>
> 1. foundational libraries (basic types)
>
> 2. architecture related libraries 
> (embedded/cloud/desktop/mobile)
>
> 3. application level libraries (image processing etc)
>
> Then you enforce dependencies in a way where lower level 
> numbers don't depend on higher levels and give priority to the 
> implementation of lower level (greater stability guarantees).

That looks like good architecture. I'm not sure if 2 and 3 
wouldn't be at the same level of (non-) dependency? Or maybe it's 
the image processing example you've used. In any case 2 would 
have more priority because of practical reasons (necessity for a 
real-world standard library, and core-ness) and lack of 3rd-party 
alternatives.