I think D's approach is the right one. It's not a replacement for C, it's a supplement, with no barrier to entry. You can do all of the following: compile C cod

I think D's approach is the right one. It's not a replacement for C, it's a supplement, with no barrier to entry. You can do all of the following: compile C code and call it directly from your D program (no bindings needed), compile D code and run it directly from your C program (no bindings needed), write C code using basically the same syntax but with some additional features (betterC), or write a D program and interoperate with C libraries without writing bindings. I think a lot of C programmers dislike some parts of the language - something that's true of any language - but they like writing C code the way they have for the last X years. If they're willing to give up the preprocessor, they can keep using C. There's no need to replace C. D has support for all the platforms of GCC and LLVM. That's obviously not as many as C, but it's a lot.