I was hoping for a more adult analysis of [Alexandrescu's introspection talks](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alexandrescu+Introspection) and Nim vs D...
> FWIW I had a look at D multiple times and learned to fervently dislike it. My > personal summary is that D is but yet another better C/C++ attempt with funny > gadgets added and an utter lack of consistence in concept and design. You are entitled to your opinion, and I partially agree, but this crude attitude is not very persuasive. I suspect that much of this dislike is only [skin-deep](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/2811). Some people reject Nim for its [off-side syntax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-side_rule#Off-side_rule_languages); some dislike D for its [wooden joints](https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~andre/courses/CS294F98/parthenon.html) and semicolons... Adding an alternative parser / skin / compiler front-end to either would be a relatively small effort compared to everything else involved in creating a compiler, tooling, and library ecosystem. It's sad that this leads to so much fragmentation and duplication of effort... In VM ecosystems people can "agree to disagree" on the syntax (ex. Scala, Kotlin, Groovy, [etc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages)) while sharing almost everything else, but native systems languages are stuck reinventing the wheel... > To even put Nim and D next to each other is ridiculous. Facepalm... I agree with @mratsim about the similarities. I've long said that D is Nim's nearest competitor. Both languages are GC-by-default feature-rich system languages with [similar features](https://github.com/timotheecour/D_vs_nim) and [performance qualities](https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks). Both are a lot less popular than they deserve to be. They are also top contenders for people who care about [ecosystem independence](https://voat.co/v/programming/2853775) and [legal unencumberedness](http://copyfree.org).
