"Programming in D" on Educative.io

[ShadoLight]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 03:22:43 UTC, dangbinghoo wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 08:42:43 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 at 19:25:43 UTC, welkam wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> This opinion seems quite common in the D community, but I 
>> frankly don't see it. If you are referring to the D subset 
>> defined by the BetterC switch, well, maybe then I would agree. 
>> But not for D in general.
>>
>> [...]
>
> but D has GC enabled, then it's not re-engineering of C++.

To quote you back at yourself: "but D has GC enabled, then it's 
not re-engineering of C" ... either.

D has unique features as well as features taken/inspired from 
other languages.

Anyway, I quoted Walter - he referred to "D was conceived ... as 
a successor to C and C++..." [1]. Note that he conceived of D as 
a _successor_ to both C and C++, not just C.

The term "re-engineering", IMHO, is a bit misleading - like if 
some C (or C++) codebase was "re-engineered" to become D. That is 
not what happened. But maybe this is not what the OP meant.

In fact, looking at some synonyms of the term "successor" [2] 
IMHO gives a better insight into the objectives of D in relation 
to C/C++ than the idea of a "re-engineered C" (or C++):

     -replacement
     -beneficiary
     -descendant
     -follower
     -inheritor
     -next in line

I guess you can argue over what the term "re-engineering" really 
covers/means, but my original objection was to the idea that D 
was somehow a "re-engineering" (or even "successor") of only C, 
and not of C++ as well. It was not one or the other, it was both.

[1] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20021205114505/http://digitalmars.com/d/index.html
[2] https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/successor