"Xavier" <x...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:j51jsp$2lln$1...@digitalmars.com... > > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > >> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of >> C++ >> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement on >> the >> matter. Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many >> programmers >> may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar to >> C++ but >> without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in a >> hurry >> to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with C++ use >> languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has a >> major >> uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages are >> regardless of how much better it may be. >> > > There is something wrong with that last sentence. Especially since in the > preceding material that I snipped, you noted that the compilers for D are > not up to snuff. You seem to be noting its deficiencies but wanting it to > be "better" somehow, maybe for some of it's "neat features"? Perhaps D > just has to grow up before it can battle anywhere, let alone on hills?
In both this and your other post, you're conflating the notions of the "language quality" vs "implementation quality". The two are not the same. Now, yes, D effectively has one implementation (the DMD frontend), but even considering that, the notions are still worth separating: For one thing, implementation quality is much easier to improve than language quality. An implementation deficiency can always be fixed. But a language deficiency can usually only be fixed if it's an additive change, which: #1 Rules out all non-additive improvements, and #2 Often forces an inferior solution to be used, creating language cruft. Secondly, it *IS* possible, and not at all uncommon, for a language deficiency to be MORE severe than an implementation deficiency. For example, updating header files and keeping them in-sync with the implementation is far more time consuming than working around any of the bugs in D's module system. Another: Certain details about C++ *force* the language to be slow-to-compile. That CANNOT be improved. As a consequence, many C++ projects take hours to compile. Unless you shell out the $$$ for a distributed-compilation cluster. Either way, that's much more costly than dealing with any D bug I've come across in the last year (yes, there were some severe ones in the past, but those are now fixed). So no, it's NOT a contradiction that D can be a better language while still having implementation issues.
