On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 04:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > 
> > I have to agree with all of this. I've never found D as a whole to
> > be overly complicated. C++ wins _that_ contest hands down. And I've
> > found languages like Java to be overly simple (e.g. one of my
> > professors in college said that Java didn't become a real language
> > until they added generics, because that actually added some
> > complexity to it). IMHO, any language that's really worth using
> > isn't going to be simple.

/// ditto :-)

> Any task has an inherent level of complexity. That complexity can be
> either be in the language, or in the user code. Your choice.
> And then there's C++ which manages to CREATE extra needless complexity
> on both sides, thereby falsely convincing entire generations of
> programmers that langauge complexity is inherently bad. No, it's
> *unnecessary* complexity that's bad.

And this in the name of backward compatibility with C, with which it is
not strictly backward-compatible. :-D

> > I originally ended up finding D, because I wanted a language with
> > some of the safety features that Java had but without losing all of
> > the power of C++. C++ had too many problems that resulted in bugs,
> > and Java had stripped out too many features in comparison.
> *Exactly* what led me to D, too. :)

/// ditto :-)

When I found D, I had already been chafing for *years* under the hell
that C++ development was, but could not stand the thought of moving to
Java, because it was just (1) too verbose, and (2) not powerful enough
to express what I want. (That was in the days before Java generics...
though even with generics, I doubt I would've been convinced. It's just
... not quite "there" in terms of expressive power.)

D does have its warts, yeah, but I'm sticking with it for now because it
represents the closest thing to what I consider an ideal programming


Elegant or ugly code as well as fine or rude sentences have something in 
common: they don't depend on the language. -- Luca De Vitis

Reply via email to