On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 22:59:43 UTC, Konstantin wrote:
> It can't be used for high frequency trading or other niches where performance is matter, because has dependency on GC in language structure and infrastructure (classes).

Java and Go are used in HFT and other performance sensitive areas, and they are much more dependent on GC than D is.

> On my opinion Dlang has features to be popular system and scripting language. It needs not many cool unfinished things, but well implemented. And lang needs development plan with priorities.

D suffers from its own version of "curse of Lisp", which is both a blessing and a curse. http://winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html . Read the article, especially the Haskell part reminds me of how suddenly D wants to be Rust with its borrow checker.

D is very powerful and gives you a lot of choice, but those choices come with tradeoffs. Languages like Java or Go don't give you a choice when it comes to GC. You either accept the GC and use these languages, or you don't accept the GC and go for C/C++/Rust. That's one less technical decision to make on every project. Also, the paradigms in these languages are more consistent. For 99% of Java projects/libraries, you know they will be object oriented and you know they will be using GC, exceptions and all the stuff, so you can rely on those. Also, the standard library provides good foundation libraries, so a library might take stdlib objects like InputStream as input and enjoy the benefits of interop with other libraries that work with inputstreams.

I don't know what to think about D 3.0... obviously everyone has their idea what it should look like. Most people seem to opt for D 3.0 being an update with a package of breaking changes. But then it could also be D 2.100 or something like that.

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 22:59:43 UTC, Konstantin wrote:
> And as i know initial purpose on Dlang development was re-engineering of c++.
It started as re-engineering of C. Then Andrei touched it(in a good way) and now people think it was designed as better C++.

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 22:59:43 UTC, Konstantin wrote:
> Some people wrote posts about problems "to sell" D to programmers like modern languages(Rust, Go, Java). It's not clear which niches Dlang was designed to cover.

Meme driven development. A niche is a bug, not a feature.

On Friday, 27 March 2020 at 15:56:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> There have been a lot of this pattern happening:
>
> 1. We need to add feature X, to fix problem Y.
> 2. This will break ALL CODE IN EXISTENCE
> 3. OK, cancel the fix, we'll just live with it.
>
> Having a new branch of the compiler will provide a way to keep D2 development alive while giving a playground to add new mechanisms, fix long-existing design issues, and provide an opt-in for code breakage.
>
> Some issues I can think of:
>
> 1. The safe by default debate
> 2. pure by default
> 3. nothrow by default
> 4. String interpolation DIP
> 5. auto-decoding
> 6. range.save
> 7. virtual by default
> 8. ProtoObject
>
[snip]
>
> I just wanted to throw it out as a discussion point. We spend an awful lot of newsgroup server bytes debating things that to me seem obvious, but have legitimate downsides for not breaking them in a "stable" language.
>
> -Steve

Interesting post. Yet very unspecific, and as far as I remember, Walter decided that unspecific posts would not be heeded anymore. Be that as it may, what difference will it make? As you said, other languages are developing fast and, may I add, are keeping an eye on recent developments like big data and (relatively) new platforms. I fear the D train won't leave the station anymore.

As a prominent D user once said:

"So any discussion _now_ would have the very same structure of the discussion _then_, and would lead to the exact same result. It's quite tragic. And I urge the real D supporters to let such conversation die (topics debated to death) as soon as they appear."

It's quite tragic indeed.

On Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 18:37:19 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Interesting post. Yet very unspecific, and as far as I remember, Walter decided that unspecific posts would not be heeded anymore. Be that as it may, what difference will it make? As you said, other languages are developing fast and, may I add, are keeping an eye on recent developments like big data and (relatively) new platforms. I fear the D train won't leave the station anymore.
>
> As a prominent D user once said:
>
> "So any discussion _now_ would have the very same structure of the discussion _then_, and would lead to the exact same result. It's quite tragic. And I urge the real D supporters to let such conversation die (topics debated to death) as soon as they appear."
>
> It's quite tragic indeed.

Not quite as tragic as someone who comes to a D language forum year after year to complain about the D language.