D as a betterC a game changer ?

[Mengu]

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 14:06:51 UTC, Dan Partelly 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom 
> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>
> Well, C++ had to evolve over a very long period of time, and 
> maintain compatibility with C. No other programming language 
> had to deal with technical and social issues C++ had to deal 
> with.
>
> By comparison, D is young, and had the advantage it had no 
> constrains to be compatible (language wise) with another 
> language. Evolution time is not an excuse to a mixed 
> personality (even if perceived). For all it's evolution time 
> and mistakes and idiotic size of the language to pay for C's 
> sins and omissions I do not see C++ as mixed personality. I 
> never did. It evolved consistently. Also, another language, Ada 
> went through 1 standard and 3 major revisions in almost 35 
> years and retained it's personality basically unchanged. Too 
> bad it was designed with a  Wirthian syntax, which IMO was one 
> of the factors it doomed it.
>
> D went GC, but no quite mandatory GC, also not quite able to 
> run its in entirety without GC, then in it's old age, went for 
> cosmetic surgery to look like slim and sexy miss C. Much like a 
> beautiful and capricious women with commitment issues and a 
> fear of aging which went through 5 husbands. And it all started 
> with a GC and several wrong defaults ....
>
>
>> [...]
>
> God knows. All "x" users of D would scream bloody murder, imo.

if that would become the d way and made us write memory safe 
code, why not? rust developers already have to write code under 
compiler dictated terms and nobody's complaining. d developers 
who write d code like java are small in numbers compared to those 
who don't. heck, i'll go even further and wish pure was also 
default.