Is D Dead?

[Kenneth Dallmann]

On Saturday, 5 June 2021 at 23:33:59 UTC, The Reaper wrote:
> It seems like it, after a year or so hiatus there is very 
> little activity. Seems like D is gone as I predicted it would 
> be because of the lack of passion to push it forward and turn 
> it in to a competitive modern project. Boomers killed D ;/

C has been around for a long time and is the de facto language of 
almost everything. To my understanding, Rust and D are the only 
two languages that can compete.

D is certainly not dead and it's lack of popularity doesn't mean 
it is less valuable either.
I can explain why:

    D is fluent with C, so you can access the libraries made in C.

    D has a full range of OOP features that is unparalleled in the 
systems level paradigm. The only competitor is C++, and that 
language has become syntatically displeasing.



I can highlight some strengths and weaknesses:

     D has a full range of OOP features; clean syntax; garbage 
collection, like some of the most popular languages now, like 
Java and Python; full access to hardware and assembly friendly; 
and OOP in D can be implemented in a very precise way, thanks to 
structs and classes.

     On the flip side: D's garbage collection adds runtime 
overhead.
For bit by bit performance I would probably choose Rust over D, 
however unless you're programming very small embedded devices the 
performance differences are likely trivial.