There is some irony in someone replying to the author of the D language suggesting that maybe the D language is the real solution he's looking for.

▲ publicdebates an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It might be the language he is looking for, but it might not, and more likely than not is not. D is one of those odd languages which most likely ought to have gotten a lot more popular than it did, but for one reason or another, never quite caught on. Perhaps one reason is because it lacks a sense of eccentricity and novelty that other languages in its weight class have. Or perhaps it's just too unfamiliar in all the wrong ways. Whatever the case may be, popularity is in fact one of the most useful metrics when ruling out a potential language for a new project. And if D does not meet GP's requirements in terms of longevity or commercial support, I would certainly not suggest GP adopt it too eagerly, simply because it happens to check off most or all their technological requirements.

	▲	WalterBright 22 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		D is an elegant re-imagine of C and C++. For a trivial example, `typedef struct S { int a; } S;` becomes simply: `struct S { int a; }` and unlike C: `extern int foo(); int bar() { return foo(); } int foo() { return 6; }` you have: `int bar() { return foo(); } int foo() { return 6; }` For more complex things: `#include <foo.h>` becomes: `import foo;`
	▲	RickHull 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think that D meets Walter Bright's requirements.

▲ I_am_uncreative 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A tale as old as time.