Using C++ everywhere D is makes things worst

[jkpl via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 13:27:45 UTC, karabuta wrote:
> I understand many D programmers were formally(or still is or 
> in-between) C++ but most explanations for certain things tells 
> me either D is a C++ clone or I need to learn C++ first before 
> I really understand D (kind of like C++ is a subset of D). I 
> must say that I never coded C++ beyond "hello, world!" and I 
> don't plan to.
>
> This is not about me and what I want, it is about improving the 
> D learning resources available. Explaining D code by using 
> C/C++ code and or theory confuses me as a learner. D alone is 
> too much to learn.

You neither need a C nor a CPP background to learn D.
Before starting to learn D I was only (and barely) reading C, 
just because of the few times I had to deal with C headers file 
when using bindings in another lang.

You can start D from scratch. This is not because there are 
comparisons (such as the wiki sections: comming from...) that 
it's mandatory.

For example with

http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html

you can start from scratch, at least the book is advertised so.