OK, good to know about D. As far as zero cost, my understanding is that D is still trying to get rid of GC from the standard library. And I'm explaining why I

OK, good to know about D. As far as zero cost, my understanding is that D is still trying to get rid of GC from the standard library. And I'm explaining why I think Rust is having a hard time getting adoption. It makes an effort to be compatible with C, but not with C++. But really C++ is its "competitor", not C. And C++ has the network / lock-in effect I described. All languages have a network effect to some degree (libraries, documentation), but I think the situation with C++ is especially acute. Also, I would say that safety and zero-cost abstractions are the goal of Rust. Those two goals conflict somewhat -- e.g. in the decision over bounds checking. Although I guess you can say that without bounds checking you have no abstraction; you just have a pile of buggy code at zero cost :)