So, can we talk about virtual by default again? Daniel Murphy was behind it wrt c++ compatibility. It's still driving me insane. All things I said will happen do happen, constantly. On 12 Sep 2014 09:25, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/11/2014 8:39 AM, Sean Kelly wrote: > >> Is C++ interop really that important or is it another one of those "if D >> had >> this, *then* I would use it!" dismissals. C interop is clearly crucial. >> Operating system interfaces are written in C, and not being able to call C >> functions is hugely limiting. But C++? I honestly can't envision a >> situation >> where I would actually care about C++ interop. Is this truly a blocker >> for some >> people? Like an actual, honest blocker and not just a false flag? >> > > C++ was adopted because one could gradually ease into it from C. This will > never be true for C++ => D, but many people have reported it was nearly > impossible to transition to D for them because they had engines, libraries, > whatever, in C++ and it was just not reasonable to wrap them with a C > interface. So they just stayed with C++. > > Considering that some of them spent some significant effort trying to do > it suggests it is an honest blocker (and I've seen plenty of false flags). > > Interestingly, D's "competitor" languages do not offer any migration path > from C++, and some are even poor at hooking up with C code. Having a better > story with D offers us potentially a huge advantage. >
