Hmm, I see. A classical political correctness and Über-Ich argument ... Well, no. I clearly said "personal summary" and I have no obligation to meet any arbitrary conditions like e.g. "examples!" Well noted, I _could_ provide more detail (and I did for Nim which is _worth it_ ) but I don't for D.
But I will provide one hint as a token of good will: readability. Unlike Nim D stayed stuck in the braces and "let's save some characters for efficiency" paradigm - which has been demonstrated to be a _major_ source of errors. Summary: D is, just as I said, just yet another "let's make a better C/C++" (with some thrown in/glued on modern stuff. With all due respect I'm not interested in your list. Those things are technicalities. A good language, however, needs deeper insights (I'd even say wisdom). Araq demonstrably has that insight while Mr. Bright actually comes from a decades long C compiler background. Nothing against Mr. Bright, he is probably a nice and smart man, but he even said himself (!) that D came into existence to be a better C/C++. Classical premise problem.
