They haven't.
AS C++ competitor, it seems logical that D would require more time to mature than a scripting language and even now-successful languages like Python have taken a long period before they gained traction and then popularity.
And Facebook is using it, that seems to imply some reasonable momentum.
Ha! you are fun, searching through my comment history and downvoting old comments still downvotable. Whatever floats your boat.
But yes, instead of acknowledging that there's a valid point there, let's just accuse everyone who lives in the real world where you actually have to USE a language, not just admire its technical merits, of being low and middle brow.
>Lets talk about Justin Bieber!
I don't understand why you invoked the name of a Canadian popstar. There is no chance of such a comment adding to the discussion.
I think D made more sense pre-C++11.
As for, should one abandon and existing C++ project and rewrite in D. Probably a bad idea, such a thing would require strong arguments. On the other hand for some project that is beginning now, I would say its evenly matched. The possibility of abandoning a lot of the C++ cruft and legacy is not something that should be ignored. Whether that compensates for the reduced maturity of tooling as compared to C++ has to be decided on a case by case basis, and this question is going to be a perennial question that would afflict the adoption of any new language. Its hard to have authoritative answers for this. That said I am looking forward to some improvements in D, better garbage collection, better separation of functions in the std library that uses garbage collection, getting the runtime memory requirements down for compiling D code that uses a lot of CTFE, and well if you could add sum types and pattern matching and efficient fibres/coroutines that would be very nice. I think fibres would be a tough one if one has to maintain portability and compatibility with C libraries.