On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:11 -0700 "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote: > Back then there was a lot of pressure to minimalize the > language; nowadays we know better...
No we don't. Some of us do, like those of us here in D-land. But from what I've seen there's still a *lot* of belief in keeping languages minimal. > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:22:18AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > > I dunno. The more I learned about C++'s more advances features the > > more disillusioned I became with it. I was always happiest (or at > > least, least unhappy) with the "C with classes" form of C++. > > Have to agree with that. Though when templates first came out, they > were a huge thing for me. It was only later that it became clear that > the way C++ handled them was ... well, it left a lot to be > desired. :) When I got acquianted with D's templates, I was totally > blown away. It was like a veil was lifted and I saw for the first > time what a *real* template system ought to look like. > I always tended to avoid doing much of anything with C++ templates simply because they were still new at the time and the implementations were considered to still be somewhat buggy. Around the same time, I was noticing that using any of the newer, fancier, "better" features of C++ had a tendency to leave you needing to *also* start using all of the other fancier features, too, many of which were either awkward (being C++ and all) or known-buggy (the templates at the time). So that was a big part of what made me start loosing interest in C++. > C++11 (finally!) introduced lambdas > and type inference, and a bunch of other stuff, but ... meh. A lot of > it feels like "too little, too late". > Yea. I generally feel that, regardless of whether or not those involved are consciously thinking it, C++ is basically a rusty run-down old engine on two working cylinders that's...not trying to catch up with D, but just trying it's best not to fall too far behind, too quickly.
