What are the prominent upsides of the D programming language?

[data pulverizer]

On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 20:59:30 UTC, Araq wrote:
> On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 18:36:20 UTC, data pulverizer 
> wrote:
>> Poor standard library, for example the threading library 
>> doesn't even begin to compare with D's or indeed parallel for 
>> loops in D. Currenly in Nim's standard library, the parallel 
>> for loop will seriously malfunction in a variety of ways for 
>> example, if you are trying to read/write to then same array 
>> (in different locations) -
>
> Well we map '||' to the OpenPM standard which works well enough 
> for most of the industry. Could have picked a more credible 
> example about how bad our stdlib is.

This comment is linked to this query in the Nim forums: 
https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/6317. D, Chapel, and Julia are able 
to carry out this calculation between their base and standard 
libraries.

I would have liked to include Nim in a benchmark I was doing for 
an article with the other three languages actually discussed the 
Nim forums: https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/6443#39740 but one of 
the requirements I set for the article is that only the standard 
libraries and base language could be used.

**As I said, I think Nim is a fantastic language**, but as a data 
scientist, there are certain things I expect from standard 
libraries in modern languages. One of them is being able to 
easily write and run code like the example threaded kernel matrix 
calculation using either elements from the base or standard 
library. That is pretty basic to me.