On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
Design by committee usually produces subpar or bland results
and is painfully slow to boot, and IIRC is one of the reasons
Walter created D: to get away from the C++ standards committee.
The output of a committe is as good as the people on it and what
those people can agree on. The strength of the C++ standards
committee is that they have sufficient diversity to cover many
fields and enough resistance to limit most unnecessary additions
to the standard library. The output of the C++ committee over the
past decade has been decent IMO. The core issues in C++ is
related to C compatibility which also is its core strength,
backwards compatibility.
Unfortunately D has become stuck in the same kind of
compatibility backwaters, but without reaping the benefits that
C++ has.
Some C++ advantages that D does not have:
- Multiple independent compiler vendors pushing the envelope.
- Alternative independent foundational library
frameworks/repositories.
So in C++ you have many language features being tested in
production years or decades before they are added to the standard.
In D the design is tested after being added to the "implicit
standard" of DMD/Phobos.
