Old but interesting link as to the low adoption reason for D

[bauss]

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 11:45:00 UTC, Bo wrote:
> * Your guaranteed that this will have maintainers. Unlike 
> alternative unofficial solutions.
>

This is where you're wrong.

Considering that D is an open-source language, nothing is 
guaranteed.

Neither is there any guarantee who works on what and the same 
people who works on the "unofficial libraries" might as well be 
the __same__ people who works on the "official libraries"... That 
is actually the case in many of the __popular__ "unofficial" 
libraries, that they also contribute to D itself.

> * Guaranteed for a official stable API that will be similar 
> across libraries. Cutting down on time for new developers to 
> get familiar with the language.
>

  I partially agree with this, but again history shows that D's 
official API sometimes isn't as reliable as other unofficial 
equivalents. There's just a lot of restrictions in how the API is 
designed in ex. Phobos, which is why new modules sometimes just 
gets frozen for an unknown time and/or gets completely abandoned.

That same issue can be said about some unofficial libraries, but 
in those cases it's usually just because they don't gather the 
attention they deserve and that is where I agree with your point.

Perhaps just adding unofficial libraries as official libraries 
would be the best solution.

> * Having a load of different Independent libraries that "do the 
> same but not exactly the same" is simply bad practice.
>
> Case and point: https://code.dlang.org/search?q=mysql
>
> No official library, some are not supported, some are 
> duplicates with minor changes, no official API or standard... 
> can go on a long time.
>

My point above stands here too.