> D's objective is/was not to be popular but rather to be exactly what it is: a better low-level language.

I don't believe that one second, every language strives to be popular and reach large adoption, since more developers == more maintainers == bigger ecosystem == more reach into enterprise.

That's not so simple, because large adoption at a too early stage causes the language definition to freeze before it reaches maturity.

Simon Peyton-Jones from the Haskell community explaining exactly that: "What happens if [a language] become successful too quickly? You can't change anything!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re96UgMk6GQ&t=1395

Is this the same as what I've read of as the (humorous) Haskellers' motto: Anything but success! or Avoid success at all costs? or something like that? :) Meaning maybe that they do not want to dilute the purity of their language for industry success?

Edit: A quick google finds this, which is enlightening:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12056169

I would hold up Haskell as another counter example to your assertion.

Would you really, though?

I can definitely picture some proponents taking enjoyment from their programming language being perceived as inaccessible to the masses. Insofar as it makes them feel more elite for their knowledge of it.

But even then, the ego gratification depends on there being a wide audience of people who know "of" the language and its inaccessibility. If people don't know that you're elite, then well... are you?

Proponents of programming languages notwithstanding though, I don't believe for a moment that the creators of any programming language do not wish for it to obtain wide adoption.

Wow! I think you're being extremely uncharitable to SPJ, who I believe expressed the sentiment about Haskell originally.

There's ton of reasons to not wish for adoption. For instance, supporting commercial use of a programming language is a lot of effort and takes a very different shape to pure language/compiler experimentation and research: more software engineering and less computer science.

It is true that the creators probably wish for the product of the research (as in, the successful ideas) to be adopted widely, but that's not the same as wishing for popularity of the framework that proved the ideas. The researchers can focus on their strengths as can commercial compiler/language developers.

Well, you're wrong about Haskell but in the general case you are right.

The idea that the creator of Haskell tried to put forth when he said he did not want the language to be popular was that it would mean losing the freedom to change things. As soon as a programming language achieves general adoption you immediately have the issue of technical debt and backwards compatibility to contend with, which would be a huge drawback in a research language.

It says something about the qualities of Haskell that it achieved substantial popularity in spite of this.

You're right. The aim for D is total world domination.

Of course, but while still being itself.

Just like you would like to be personally successful, but won't sell your soul or betray your principles for it.

The HolyC language was mandated by God and therefore needs none of those things.