Hiding class pointers -- was it a good idea?

[James Dennett]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Making something part of the language
>> standardizes it. That's why having unittests, asserts, preconditions,
>> etc., in D is such a boon: while that could all be done using a
>> library, there'd probably be three or four different libraries out
>> there to do it and 75% of users wouldn't know about them or use those
>> features at all.
> 
> Right on.
> 

It's true; one problem with C++ is that there is too much
diversity in the (huge) set of idioms and libraries, and
standardization has many benefits (which is why it's
something I work on).  Sometimes it *can* even be better
to have one preferred approach to something even if it's
not technically the greatest, for the other benefits that
it can bring.

With the complexity of C++, it's a real problem finding
developers with enough knowledge to use it safely and
efficiently (more so than for C, in my experience, though
the best C++ runs rings around C).  Simplicity and
uniformity has great merit, but does require taking
calculated risks and making trade-offs.

-- James