> there’s also the general feeling that the D creators’ vision of what a fixed C++ looks like is just vastly different from mine
I have emphasized for years that D is not C++. It can be used as a replacement for C++, in the sense that it does the same things, but it is not accurate to call it a "fixed C++". So many times I have seen C++ programmers disappointed that D is not C++. On the other hand, if you're a C programmer, you'll probably be comfortable writing D code. I think of D and C++ as incompatible forks of C.
> So many times I have seen C++ programmers disappointed that D is not C++.
More generally, every time I learn a new language, it is always frustrating, because I cannot write the same thing in the new language that I was used to writing in the old. It takes time until one starts thinking in terms of the new language, and only then will the frustration fade.
Yes, we can agree that D is not like C++ - not at all.
The reason C++ programmers are usually disappointed, is because D gets marketed as such (it's the bait you need to get them to look at D afterall).
In fact, even on the basic class type, C++ and D are really miles apart. Make no mistake about this - they are miles apart, even on this one construct (the same contruct for there being a C++ in the first place).
It is clear when you use D, that it wasn't designed to be like C++.
D does have a subset that is C like, and that's primarly because it is, in essence, C.
So D is D.
D is not at all like C++.
A subset of D is like C (cause it is - more or less - C).
I have emphasized for years that D is not C++. It can be used as a replacement for C++, in the sense that it does the same things, but it is not accurate to call it a "fixed C++". So many times I have seen C++ programmers disappointed that D is not C++. On the other hand, if you're a C programmer, you'll probably be comfortable writing D code. I think of D and C++ as incompatible forks of C.