C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Piotrek]

Tony wrote:


>[...] 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?).
> 

Wikipedia says: "Context-sensitive grammars are more general than 
context-free grammars but still orderly enough to be parsed by a linear 
bounded automaton.". Whether this sentence is true or not, our way of 
thinking is context-sensitive which ironically makes things simpler 
(more info with less steps to carry out).


> 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.

Robert and Nick have explained that. Only I must update my sentence 
where I was speaking about higher level on demand. Actually it's more 
likely  that D gives lower level on demand (and it's more natural IMHO).

Cheers