Rust's safety is not limited to memory safety; you get data race freedom too. But the memory safety is the same (assuming you opt into SafeD).

Java is also native compiled. Language != Implementation.

OpenJDK is only the reference implementation. There are plenty of commercial implementations with AOT compilers.

Edit: did not write != properly

Yes, but it shows that the language was designed for interpretation. E.g. lazy static initializers is weird in AOT compilation.

It is not weird in functional programming languages.

I think you misunderstood me, because I used "lazy". It has nothing to do with Haskell lazyness.

In Java static fields are initialized when a class is loaded by the class loader. A class is only loaded when used. If anything (IO,scheduler,etc) changes the order in which classes are used, then initializers are called in a different order and their side effects as well. This semantic is mandatory by language definition.

In a Java AOT compiler this means every access to a static field must be prefixed with a (synchronized) check if the class is already initialized and optimizing it away is rarely possible. A JIT compiler does not even care, because it knows the class is already loaded.

For contrast, in C++ static fields are all initialized before main is called.

Actually I don't know how the current AOT compilers approach that situation.

Now with Oracle taking the steps to eventually make AOT compilation also a feature in the reference JDK, I suppose whatever issues might still exist they will be tackled.

Can you expand on the downside part of D?

Downsides compared to ...

All of them: Language is more complex and takes longer to learn. Less community. Less libraries.

Python: D cannot be as close to pseudo code, mostly due to static types.

Rust: Borrow checking looks like a nice idea. The question is, if the cost is worth it.

As a language, I think D is clearly better than Java and Go. Go has better tooling. For example, go-fmt is production quality, while dfmt is alpha quality.