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.

Reply via email to