> C# C interop is pretty smooth

True, but you still need to either generate or manually write the bindings. In D, you just import the C headers directly without depending on the bindings' maintainers.

> If it was an actual C++ modernization attempt that stayed C compatible it would have seen much better

Any D compiler is literally also a C compiler. I sincerely don't know how can one be more C compatible than that.

> Yes, and the no-gc stuff was just attempts to backpedal on the wrong initial decision

I think that it was more of an attempt to appease folks who won't use GC even with a gun to their head.

▲

rafaelmn 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying D didn't have nice features - but if D/C#/Java are valid options I'm never picking D - language benefits cannot outweigh the ecosystem/support behind those two. Go picked a niche with backend plumbing and got Google backing to push it through.

Meanwhile look at how popular Zig is getting 2 decades later. Why is that not D ? D also has comp-time and had it for over a decade I think ? Zig proves there's a need that D was in the perfect spot to fill if it did not make the GC decision - and we could have had 2 decades of software written in D instead of C++ :)

	▲	arcadia_leak 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> D/C#/Java are valid options I'm never picking D This is perfectly fair. > D was in the perfect spot to fill if it did not make the GC decision I just find it hard to believe that the GC is the one big wart that pushed everyone away from the language. To me, the GC combined with the full power of a systems language are the killer features that made me stick to D. The language is not perfect and has bad parts too, but I really don't see the GC as one of them.