Why do C++ programmers are not interested in D?

[IGotD-]

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 at 01:19:32 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
wrote:
>
> I think it's not really helpful to worry about what others are 
> doing - honourably steal ideas, sure.  But the most important 
> thing is to do good work and make the language, library and 
> ecosystem better.  If that keeps happening then adoption will 
> follow.
>

There are a lot of threads of these "why D isn't picking up", "D 
is dead" and so on. Why not enjoy programming in D instead of 
fearing the walls are going down any second.

I'm actually an example. It took 20 years for me to find D. I 
knew about its existence but there wasn't any real reason to 
switch from C++ to D. C++ did its job and it was proven 
technology. The reason I started to finally look into to D is 
that as time goes on you're expected to do more with less and 
that's where C++ starts to show its limits. Programs require more 
today, especially when it comes to communications, DB 
interactions. Complexity also seem to find its way down into 
smaller systems as well. Now it is not unusual that small 
embedded systems should talk to the world through the internet 
and access databases, both local and server. 10 years ago this 
was more unusual but it is quickly becoming standard.

Also 20 years ago C++ was less template heavy. You pretty much 
used C++ as an object oriented language and only touched 
templates when you needed generics. Today I see much more 
templates in C++ which reduces the readability a lot. Many 
programmers also want to show off their template skills but it 
doesn't help the aesthetics of the program. D has more verbose 
templates which was for me another reason I wanted to move from 
C++.