OSNews article about C++09 degenerates into C++ vs. D discussion

[Kyle Furlong]

Walter Bright wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>>> Wow that was long, but good, make it an article, Walter?
> 
> I think it is good material for an article.
> 
>> Concerning D and GC:
>>
>> The problem is that most D apologists /DO/ advertise D as having the 
>> best of both worlds when it comes to memory management, but C++ fans 
>> are bound and determined to see D as practically a GC-only language: 
>> the GC is one of the first points they always bring up.  They keep 
>> seeing it in the same light as Java and other such languages.  It's 
>> unfair and short-sited, but a typical response.
> 
> 
> A common misconception that people have against D is that since D has 
> core arrays, strings, and complex numbers, that therefore it is not 
> possible to create user defined types in the library. They'll say things 
> like "I prefer to use C++ because I can create my own types!" I 
> patiently explain that this is not so, that there is nothing stopping 
> one from creating their own user defined D types. And then they come 
> back a week, a month later and repeat the same misinformation. Sigh.
> 
> 
>  > If you really take an honest look at OSNEWS posts and others, you will
>  > realize that some of these people are literally annoyed at D and D
>  > promoters for a reason deeper and unrelated to the language.  You can't
>  > argue with that.  Some good considerations, like Steve's, just doesn't
>  > hit home with those boys.
> 
> That's to be expected. Many people have bet their careers on C++ being 
> the greatest ever, and nothing can change their mind. D is a personal 
> affront to them. It doesn't really matter, though, because if you attend 
> a C++ conference, take a look around. They're old (my age <g>). Someone 
> once did a survey of the ages of D adopters, and found out they are 
> dominated by much younger folks.
> 
> And that, my friends, is why D is the future.

Because I'm the future? :D (21 here)