[nickpsecurity]

My background was high assurance systems and security plus regular software/system development. Mainly do R&D now while evangelizing field's developments. The academic and industrial side of the field keep making great progress in transformation (see Semantic Designs), static checking (Astree Analyzer), compilation (CompCert), better optimization, and so on. The main thing that hurts such work, though, is when the language and/or its standard get too complex or vague. C++ was horrid in this regard.

So, as you try to formalize it, I encourage you to try to remove as much ambiguity and processing complexity as possible. Maybe also work with academics who specialize in formal specs or methods that caught many defects in prior language or system specs. The result is that researchers interested in building assurance and QA tools for D will have a much easier time. Just look at how long it took to certify a C compiler vs ML and LISP compilers despite latter languages being much more powerful.

Reason it's important, whether an immediate concern or not, is that much of the best stuff comes from cash- and time-strapped, but smart, academics trying to make a name or push state-of-the-art. Easier your language is to work with, the more of them might choose it. And you've done a really, good job on a C++ replacement that I thought would've had more adoption. So, I'd like to see some of those brains get put on your work, too. :)

Regardless, good luck to you on your next move!