Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[Bill Baxter]

Walter Bright wrote:
> eao197 wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:26:33 +0400, Robert Fraser
>>> You seem to forget that D is evolving, too. C++ might get a lot of 
>>> the cool D features (albiet with ugly syntax), but by that time, D 
>>> might have superpowers incomprehensible to the C++ mind.
>>
>> I didn't. From my point of view, permanent envolvement is a main D's 
>> problem. I can't start use D on my work regulary because D and Tango 
>> is not stable enough. I can't start teach students D because D 1.0 is 
>> obsolete and D 2.0 is not finished yet.
> 
> I don't understand this. You could as well say that C++98 is obsolete 
> and C++0x is not finished yet.
> 
> 
>> To outperform C++ in 2009-2010 D must have full strength now and must 
>> be stable during some years to proof that strength in some killer 
>> applications.
> 
> C++0x's new features are essentially all present in D 1.0.

..but C++98's features that were missing from D are still missing (both 
good and bad ones).

--bb