C++

[Sean Kelly]

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 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.

In my experience, transliterating C++ to D allows for a lot of code to 
simply be tossed out.  It's issues like this that aren't obvious from 
simply reading a spec.

> 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".

I've yet to do the same level of work in D that I do in C++, but so far 
I'd have to agree.  And I'm looking forward to some more ambitious 
projects once the framework is sorted out sufficiently.

That said, I do think D's lack of any sort of const checking may be an 
issue for large projects (I haven't done this level of development in 
Java so I don't have a good non-C++ basis for comparison here).  I know 
the issue has been beaten to death in the past, but perhaps we could do 
with a constructive discussion before 1.0 appears on the horizon?  I've 
become convinced that the "default everything to const" method seems 
ideal, but this seems like something that should really be done before 
1.0 if it's going to happen?


Sean