C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Tony]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:gel5tu$1a1v$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Clay Smith" <clayasaurus at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gej5nr$13jd$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Tony wrote:
>>> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject 
>>> of this post).
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> Technically, I'd consider C++ to be undead. Old, ugly, its zombie rotting 
>> flesh never seems to die. It lives by eating the brains of C programmers.
>>
>> ~ Clay
>
> Funny you mention that, the analogies I normally think of for C++ are 
> either a 120+ year-old on life support or, as you said, the living dead. 
> It's long past it's time, but people just won't let it finally rest 
> (probably because, aside from D, there's no modern language that's a 
> suitable replacement for C++ in *all* of C++'s use-cases. C# and Java, for 
> instance, are only partial replacements. They can handle many of C++'s 
> uses, but not all.)

The "in *all* of C++'s use-cases" part is probably the way to create a 
dinosaur (call it E, F or G or whatever). The concept of "general purpose 
language" is getting a bit long-toothed?

Tony