| Because D is effectively dead/has lost its momentum completely? If you look at the development surrounding D, the stdlib got its allocator module around 5 years back IIRC in experimental. It is still not stable. Same for many other modules. Due to lack of resources not much work is being poured into the stdlib. Same for developer tooling, some people have created ide tools and stuff, however they are not AST based and so most of the things that should work don't work.
Yet, instead of pouring resources into these issues, the resources are poured into developing 3 compilers dmd, gcc based d, and llvm based d. Also, the readability issue posted by the op are subjective. To me, and many others, Nim is much much more readable and elegant than C/D/C++/Rust. Also regarding OP's
>Many advertised features have been present in D for a long time. Nim has macros and many features are based on or around macros, whereas D will never get macros. IIRC D uses reflection based stuff? > I seriously doubt that Nim or any other language in this regard has better metaprogramming than D. Well, you are wrong (Unless you like reflection more than macros). Nim, haxe, etc. languages have very powerful AST based macros. |
Chill. All languages have dusty corners and given the amount of ppl D has it's obvious that not all things are fixed in time but they were and they will, history already proved it. Besides, complaining is easier right?