Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[eao197]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:14:39 +0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> 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 You could as well say that C++98 is obsolete  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.

AFAIK, C++0x doesn't break compatibility with C++98. So if I teach  
students C++98 now they could use C++0x. Moreover they could use in C++0x  
all their C++98 code.

Now I see D 2.0 as very different language from D 1.0.

>> 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.

Yes, but C++ doesn't require programmers to change their language, tools  
and libraries. Such change require a lot of time and efforts. Such effors  
could be applied to the current projects instead of switching to D. But,  
if D could afford something else, something that completely missing from  
C++0x (like non-null reference/pointers, some kind of functional  
programming (pattern-matching) and so on) than such switching would be  
much more attractive.

I know that you work very hard on D, but D 1.0 took almost 7 years. D 2.0  
started in 2007, so final D 2.0 could be in 2014?

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau