On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:52:45 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:32:15 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 08:56:40 UTC, Chris wrote:
The funny thing about C++ is that there is a plethora of
books that teach you how to do it right, which is a sign that
there is something inherently wrong with the language*. I
find that in D there aren't many ways to *really* do it
wrong, but still you have the freedom to try different
approaches. D is not overly prescriptive, but often keeps you
from shooting yourself in the foot (or blow away your whole
leg**) What can happen in D is that you don't use the most
efficient way of doing something, it will make your program
slower, but it won't blow away your legs, arms or head, and
you can easily fix it later, if needs be.
* And also a sign that there is a huge industry behind it,
and, of course, people who make a living being C++ gurus
don't want the language to slowly disappear. C++ reminds me a
little bit of religion: high priests, mysteries, dogmata ...
** "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes
it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
– Bjarne Stroustrup
Also, if the trend in C++ is to go back to functional
programming (don't use classes, inheritance etc.), then what's
the point? Why not use C instead. It's kinda absurd.
For templates, stronger type checking, larger standard library
and, sometimes, the dreaded try{}.
Then why not create C+++ that keeps these useful features and get
rid of all the dangerous crap people have stopped using / are
discouraged from using?
