>>1I've used it and found it inferior because
1.Forced garbage collector, recently less forced but still embedded deep within stdlib. Stop-the-world garbage collection means no program can have predictable latency.
2.No macros, mixins are 100 times less powerful.
This is the "killer feature" of any language(with exception of some dynamic languages like js where macros can be simulated by function constructors).
alias isn't a #define replacement.
3.constant changes in the libraries and language core. Not really reassuring that code from a year ago will work with current compiler. The "core" is full of bugs too.
4.speed: the only D compiler of notable speed is gdc, developed by a single guy who regards compatibility with mainline compiler as useless. A single guy manages to beat the entire D team.
Also, dmd windows 64-bit compilation requires microsoft linker, which requires 10GB Visual Studio.
5. no custom operators for user typedefs. So "advanced".
6. D loves exceptions. Everything is built over assumption of forced exception use. Never mind 99% of time they just call abort() with errors.
7. Huge executables. without stripping -Wl,-s,--gc-sections it can be 10MB for Hello World.
8.C++ will get the features you want, in a decade, but without bloat/garbage collection of java and keep workign with old code. Betting on D being alive in a decade is risky. D code in a decade will probably be either unusable or non-compilable.