On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 20:36:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/7/13 12:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 19:34:11 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
while I got a chuckle out of "D is what C++ wanted to be.", I
might
omit this. Insulting C++ isn't likely a great way to attract
the C++
crowd, which is one of our major target audiences.
Quite the contrary, I can't really imagine many good C++
developers who
don't insult this language on their own :) Its problems are
quite
well-known and widely accepted.
Though saying that D already _is_ what C++ wanted to be is a
bit
ambitious. Probably more appropriate is to say that it was one
of main
motivations / design goals.
I agree that the definition is a tad offensive to some, and
inaccurate. It also gratuitously frames in a limiting way D's
charter itself. I don't think C++ has ever aimed to be a
convenient language for scripts that build fast and run fast,
for example.
OP: any chance to adjust that page? Then we'll announce to
reddit.
Too early for more publicity, I think.
You guys have convinced me about that C++ reference. D should not
be defined in terms of another language.
