>> for reasons he's refused to elucidate

For the simplest reasons that I have stated to you many times!

Including every language implementation that the language author would like to have included is more work than I am willing to do, period.

Sept 13 2008: 63 language implementations were shown-

https://web.archive.org/web/20080913030117/http://shootout.a...

- currently, 27 language implementations are shown.

You could truthfully say "he refuses to include [at-least 30 language implementations]". In that regard, there's nothing special about D.

You've never explained what your criteria is. Just that you didn't want to include D.

I always did want to include D — which is why we did include D — of course, we also used to include Scala and Clojure and…

There are many of benchmark projects that include D and don't appear to be struggling under any kind of massive burden. For example:

https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks

What are your actual reasons for not keeping D... "scala... and Clojure and ..."? The results in the previous link show D as a massive competitor (sometimes 1st place beating C and C++) on both memory and speed. Wouldn't the purpose of benchmarks be... to highlight useful, highly-scoring languages? Isn't that one of the primary reasons people read benchmarks?

(The D implementations are also often smaller in lines of code, as per this benchmark project:

https://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/benchmarks-round-t...

)