Why aren't you using D at work?

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 31/05/2015 11:37 a.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I have been doing my first serious attempt at D after convincing other
> people that it was the way to go quite a few years ago. (My copy of
> "The D Programming Language" doesn't have Andrei's name on it so it
> would have been around that time)
> and these are the things which are fresh for me.
>
> I had no idea that it was so easy to call C code from my D code, and
> how little effort I had to go to disguise the fact that it was C code
> thanks mostly to UFCS and @property.
> This makes it feasible to write bindings on the fly and makes me a lot
> less hesitant to try using it for any job I could use C or C++.
>
> So far so good.
>
> Now lets get to the friction points.
>
> Tooling - it's still a step down from what I am used to with C/C++ on
> linux. This is now for me at the point where it is acceptable but not
> great.
>
> Documentation - What is there is generally quite good, also quite
> terse. I am not seeing a huge number D specific results whenever I
> search on any issues I am having with my code.
>
> The Standard Library. I want to use D so I can do more with less hours
> writing code and less hours debugging code. Having a high quality
> standard library really helps this - unfortunately for me the first
> thing I needed from the standard library was xml parsing, which the
> documentation tells me is sub par and will be replaced in the near
> future, There is no indication of what I might like to use instead. Do
> I now use one of the other xml libraries floating around, bind a C
> based one or roll my own. All this eats into the efficiency that I am
> gaining by virtue of D being a really nice language.
>


Ahh std.xml, it's been that way for years.
We NEED to get that replaced. Although don't hold your breath :/