C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Tony]

"Piotrek" <starpit at tlen.pl> wrote in message 
news:geo2vt$s62$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Tony wrote:
>
>> [...] I would say that languages like C++ and D ARE the specialized 
>> ("domain specific") languages rather then the "general purpose" ones. 
>> Consider them as "where/when you need high level assembly language type 
>> of tool". Everyone who invents "the better C++" ends up in the same 
>> category as that overly complex, for a GP language, language.
>
> I also see a GP language strictly connected with processors way of 
> "thinking" and operating  with memory but with ability of switching to 
> higher level (on demand) to ovoid using tons of primitives. If well 
> deigned it can utilize computer to *everything* you need - without 
> pain-in-ass.
>
> Or one may say:
>
>> "General Purpose Language" may indeed be an oxymoron. (All kinds of jokes 
>> noting 'GPL', omitted).
>
> IMHO D is a better stage of what we can call: general propose language.

Maybe. But more probably, "general purpose language" needs to be defined 
directly because it is so subjective in context. (hehe, isn't that a 
criticism of C++: non-contenxt free grammar?).

>
>>> (C++) These days it's a systems/performance language instead.
>>
>> And not a very influential one at that, which really bogs down 
>> development.
>>
>
> Until D. Give me example of a language where you can develop faster/esier 
> (besides IDE infrastructure).

I envision a language existing "in between" the characteristics of C++ and D 
(kind of). The object models both need work in C++ and D, IMO and if I am 
forced to use GC in D, then it's a no for me because I have my own memory 
management architecture. I can "shoe horn" C++ to behave, at least, with the 
object model and the memory is unconstrained, and I do consider the latter a 
main important feature.

Tony