On 03/12/2015 06:01 AM, ayush wrote:
> Is D a lot like c++ ?
I came to D from C++. I remember the following being notable differences:
- In D, classes have reference semantics. I quickly realized that this
is not an issue because so many of my C++ types were
hand-reference-typified :p by this idiom, almost everywhere:
class C { /* ... */ };
typedef boost::shared_ptr<C> CPtr;
void foo(CPtr c);
- Garbage collector took longer to get used to. There are some issues
with the spec or implementation that some objects may never be
destructed (or is it finalized?).
Other than issues like that, everything in D feels like a fresh air.
> I am currently midway through learning c++
If you are a mortal like myself, you may find out years later that you
are still at the midway point. Happened to me several times when I was
learning C++. :)
> and I also want to learn D . So should i focus on one or learn
> both together?
Economically, C++ may make more sense. But if you are learning just for
yourself, perhaps for fun, then I recommend D.
> Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++ ?
I think so.
Ali
