How to do Generic Programming in D?

[Paulo Pinto]

How come is our loss?

I keep an eye on D and Go, because personally, I would like to see a 
language replace C and C++
as THE systems programming language.

But I hardly use any of them beside some toy examples, because on my part of 
the world,
be it with C++ or VM languages I am spoiled for choice in what concerns 
language stability and productivity.

When I see someone advocating a technology the will make everything better, 
I always remind
myself of "Worse is Better", principle.

It does not matter how good something is, in regards with what is actually 
being used, if the pain
to switch is too big for the beneficts that someone might gain, people don't 
switch. It is the human
nature.

--
Paulo

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ik1n7d$k89$1 at digitalmars.com...
> bearophile wrote:
>> Is this enough to make some C++ shops switch to D2?
>
> If they are doing new code, it should be! For existing code, that
> depends on their specific situation.
>
> The reason I was writing C++ recently though was Qt - I wanted
> to use existing code. (QtD is so, so close, but has some
> showstopper bugs on Windows and doubled the size of the
> distribution... so I instead wrote the GUI in C++ and the rest
> of the app in D. Then I got the best of both worlds.)
>
>> Firms that have megabytes of complex C++ legacy code are not
>> going to translate it to D2 just because D2 has something nicer.
>
> Most likely, they aren't going to translate it *at all*. There's
> rarely a big benefit in translating code.
>
> But, when writing fresh code, those nicer things add up to a big
> difference.
>
>> And there are significant problems in integrating D2 code in C++
>> projects. The switch from C to C++ was much more smooth.
>
> I don't know, I've never tried that. But integrating C++ into D2
> apps isn't too bad.
>
>> And lot of people have already stopped using static compilers
>> like C++ ones and have switched to the niceties of a virtual
>> machine, dynamic compilation, etc.
>
> Their loss.