dsimcha wrote:
This is a great point and deserves to be highlighted: D was meant to be a better C++, not a better C. If someone won't use C++ instead of C (apparently there are a decent amount of these people), then there's not a snowball's chance in hell they'd use D, even if we fixed the binary size issue, made D more usable without a GC, and in general made it in every way at least as efficient as C++.
D executes code every bit as efficiently as C++ does. Any variations are due to which back end is used, not the language.
I agree with your point that people who are wedded to C and won't look at C++ will not look at D, either.
Also, if you're only writing a few K of code, D's advantages aren't that compelling over C (and neither are C++'s). It's when the size of the program increases that D's strengths really begin to dominate.
