I'm curious, why don't you want to do the switch to D2? Is it because it's not mature enough?
- D2 looks and feels foreign to me as a somewhat D1 experienced user
- Templates maelstrom and strong emphasis on them
- D1 grew organically, D2 looks like an academic exercise where stuff is put in just for the sake of it by the people that don't write programs in D at all (Andrei)
- D2 book and Andrei are a filibuster for D2
- Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs, I doubt even Walter writes them (seriously). If you look at his code, it is more of a C in D than D code.
- I have little to no trust in DMD/OPTLINK, LDC/LLVM is what I'm after and that front is D1 only, and looks like it will be
- Lots of people smarter than I am are on D1 also (Tango, namely) - and I don't want to go against the trend since it would isolate me from little support I can get
these are just of top of my head, there are more. General summation could lead to "It just doesn't feel right" - at least for me as a heavy D1 user.
Templates are the killer feature of D. There is nothing wrong in the emphasis on them.
Yes I agree that there are problems in D2. But there are much more problems in D1.
If I were you, I wouldn't do such an anti-advertisement campaign here. Instead you could have pointed at what you think are the problems with D2. That would be more constructive.
>> Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs
You stated twice that he doesn't write D programs. Well since you are mentioning Tango, it's unfair because he writes code for a _standard_library_. And he is writing a good code.
All this "template maelstrom" makes sense and is unavoidable to have powerful and expressive statically-typed languages.
Secondly, lots of people won't ever switch to D2, even when it's done, because they feel that it adds a lot of feature bloat for very little gain.