Is there an intention to 'finish' D2?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:13:59 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
wrote:
> Adam is right, D2 big shift was all about const/immutable for 
> concurrency, as concurrency at that time was the main 
> opportunity goal not to be missed.

That is probably technically correct. I've always used D1 to 
refer to "simple D" and D2 to refer to modern D maximising 
meta-programming. Never seen "D0" used anywhere before, but if 
that is needed to avoid noise, then so be it. Let me use that 
from now on. (You usually include version 0.x in the first 
version of a language, so this is a very odd thing to require.)

Vision 1: simple language that can compete with C++ in performance

Vision 2: language that can outdo C++ in meta-programming

There is a drastic shift in complexity and development focus. I 
was attracted to "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". The language I 
started to use followed "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". "Vision 1" 
could have reached a polished state if "Vision 2" had not come 
along.

I am perplexed that anyone could disagree with this viewpoint.