Andrei Alexandrescu:
This reasoning is flawed. We're talking about an evolving process, with a lot happening in the past couple of years.
There is no reasoning flaw in looking at a bigger picture than just the last two years :-)
In the last years I've seen languages like Go, Scala, Clojure and even silly things like CoffeeScript pop out from almost nothing and become widely more used compared to D. Today D is not nearly as used as Scala.
So I can't tell the future, and maybe D2 will have a glorious future, but from the signs I can tell D2 is not having a fast spreading. It's a complex language, it requires a good amount of time to be learnt (D1 was an important stepping stone to learn it, because D1 was simpler) it has significant problems, new programmers are more trained in Java and JavaScript and they often don't like system languages (and many firms don't need system level programs).
Today a system language, even if widely successful, is going to be a niche, maybe 100 times less used compared to JavaScript-level languages.
So in my precedent post I have suggested to remove our blinders a moment and think about what does it means to be "successful". There is more than one meaning, as Algol and Haskell show very well :-)
Bye, bearophile
