I did not read the post, but scanned for the first contra-argument: A very dense syntax. This is the reason Rust did not attract me.
I want to raise the following: Rust is overengineered. If these highly-intelligent contributors would settle on D, I think humanity/developer-community would archive more collaborations on essential pieces of software.
Imo a statically-typed language is required to develop maintainable code. Human communications, read documentation, is much easier to extend than compilation-restrictions of a programming language.
What are the non-fixable downsizes, which prevent serious adaptation of D? readsupuponthepostbecauseaCcomparsionwasspotted
My personal opinion is: The convenience of tooling. Currently I am developing a language agnostic language server, which aims to be integrated in unix environmets without requiring exorbitant memory (currently 8 MB + file-contents). I feel, that this is my only contribution I can submit to the community iff I suceed.
I want to raise the following: Rust is overengineered. If these highly-intelligent contributors would settle on D, I think humanity/developer-community would archive more collaborations on essential pieces of software.
Imo a statically-typed language is required to develop maintainable code. Human communications, read documentation, is much easier to extend than compilation-restrictions of a programming language.
What are the non-fixable downsizes, which prevent serious adaptation of D? readsupuponthepostbecauseaCcomparsionwasspotted
My personal opinion is: The convenience of tooling. Currently I am developing a language agnostic language server, which aims to be integrated in unix environmets without requiring exorbitant memory (currently 8 MB + file-contents). I feel, that this is my only contribution I can submit to the community iff I suceed.