On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:02:58 +0300, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from Sean Kelly ([email protected])'s article
And with all the legacy code, the crufty old
approach to doing things will stick around for a Long Time Yet. Still,
if D isn't an option, at least 0x eases some of the pain of using C++.
Exactly how I feel about C++1x. It adds a lot of (though far from all)
the
interesting features of D. However, I can't stand the crufty old way of
doing
things in C++ and want to abandon it wherever I can. No matter how soon
C++0x
gets finalized and implemented, the ecosystem of idiomatic C++0x code is
going to
be small for ages, probably behind D. (Full C++0x implementations will
probably
be behind D implementations for a while, too.) Similarly, D has plenty
of
libraries if you count its ability to link to C. It's just that you
have to write
in crufty C style or write non-trivial D-ified wrappers to use them.
We still need years to see a full implementation of proposed features.
Even the latest compilers lacks many features, sometimes half.
I NTL enjoy seeing benchmarks on new features, not a change in user code
but dramatic performance gains as a result of the standard library and
language changes (rvalue).
