C++

[Walter Bright]

BCS wrote:
> Interesting, in both places snk_kid keeps harping on his claim that "D 
> is a failed attempt to be truely better than C++ in *all aspects* which 
> it isn't."

I've seen similar claims, and what they are are excuses to not use D 
regardless. It doesn't matter to these people what D can do that is 
utterly impractical in C++.

Another problem happens when people try to transliterate C++ code into 
D. That doesn't work very well - you have to rethink things a bit.

Nevertheless, I still regard D as a better C++. Not in terms of being a 
true superset, but in terms of being a better solution to the same types 
of problems that C++ is targetted at. Note that C++ isn't a true 
superset of C, either, although it is billed as a "better C".