5 ms·

> Don't you mean "why it has not succeeded yet?" No, OP got it right. D had a shot at success while C++'s standardization process remained stagnant, and D cou

> Don't you mean "why it has not succeeded yet?" No, OP got it right. D had a shot at success while C++'s standardization process remained stagnant, and D could pick up the slack as it wasn't bound by backward compatibility requirements or the need to update a standard. Once ISO 14882:2011 was approved and C++'s standardization effort gathered speed, D lost the only competitive advantage and lost its chance at relevance.

qznc 9y ago
D is not dead. It is steadily growing. Not as fast as Rust for example, but still healthy. I agree that there was a nice opportunity before C++11. Now D is lurking in the shadows for another opportunity and slowly building. I believe D would be a great language for startups because it gives you options. You can do it quicky and dirty (like Python/Ruby/Perl), you can do it fast (like C/C++), you can do it safe (like Java, but not quite Rust), you can be generic and multi-paradigm (like C++), you can be easy (like Python).
nicwilson 9y ago
While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia (c.f static if, modules, ranges, attributes that were proposed for C++ that either failed to get in or are nowhere near as useful. I can't make do without any of those). The agility of D by by comparison is one of its greatest strengths.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia That's pretty much irrelevant. The last couple of standards already updated C++ so that it covered all aspects that were deal-breakers decisions on whether to pick up C++ or any alternative whose selling point was being an updated C++. After C++11 (and now C++17) no one in their right mind would decide to rewrite a whole project because of static ifs. Moreover the irrelevance of D is the only reason why it's trivial to reinvent D when it suits anyone's fancy. A committee of experts deciding on what goes into a standard is not the same as a developer deciding on a whim on what he might implement next. If D was relevant and it's adoption motivated an ISO standard to coordinate which features went into any implementation then I seriously doubt that it would do better than C++.

qznc 9y ago

D is not dead. It is steadily growing. Not as fast as Rust for example, but still healthy. I agree that there was a nice opportunity before C++11. Now D is lurking in the shadows for another opportunity and slowly building. I believe D would be a great language for startups because it gives you options. You can do it quicky and dirty (like Python/Ruby/Perl), you can do it fast (like C/C++), you can do it safe (like Java, but not quite Rust), you can be generic and multi-paradigm (like C++), you can be easy (like Python).

nicwilson 9y ago

While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia (c.f static if, modules, ranges, attributes that were proposed for C++ that either failed to get in or are nowhere near as useful. I can't make do without any of those). The agility of D by by comparison is one of its greatest strengths.

geezerjay 9y ago
> While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia That's pretty much irrelevant. The last couple of standards already updated C++ so that it covered all aspects that were deal-breakers decisions on whether to pick up C++ or any alternative whose selling point was being an updated C++. After C++11 (and now C++17) no one in their right mind would decide to rewrite a whole project because of static ifs. Moreover the irrelevance of D is the only reason why it's trivial to reinvent D when it suits anyone's fancy. A committee of experts deciding on what goes into a standard is not the same as a developer deciding on a whim on what he might implement next. If D was relevant and it's adoption motivated an ISO standard to coordinate which features went into any implementation then I seriously doubt that it would do better than C++.