Lutger Wrote: > Tim M wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:42:17 +1300, bearophile <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Rainer Deyke: > >>> My opinion: D 1.0 is, on the whole, worse than C++. > >> > >> There are many things in D1 better than C++, in particular you need less > >> time learn the language and less time to write programs that work > >> correctly. > >> > >> Bye, > >> bearophile > > > > I think the key here is "on the whole" and in opinion. I'm not really > > interested in D vs C++ one sided arguments but apart from the constness in > > D2 what other features does C++ have over D? > > The most prominent feature is value semantics for classes
I don't agree with this one. Classes and structs are identical in C++ (except for default protection). In D, they differ. For value semantics, use structs in D. > and better support > for RAII style resource management compared to D1. Furthermore C++ allows > you much more flexibility when it comes to operator overloading, but if that > is a good thing is up for debate. And finally in C++ we have the > preprocessor of course... > > Other than that, I can't think of anything in the language itself. If you > could argue that STL is part of the C++ language, than that counts too. > > I don't see MI as a feature of C++ above D1, because everything you can > reasonably do with MI can be done in D1 with interfaces and mixins. > >
