Is D more complex than C++?

[ToNyTeCh]

Francisco Almeida wrote:
> ToNyTeCh Wrote:
>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "ToNyTeCh" <tt at nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:imri5l$1ahi$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
>>>> take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
>>>> The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just
>>>> came to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of
>>>> the compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's
>>>> compiler more intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings,
>>>> guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response. The complexity in
>>>> regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from users of
>>>> all levels of experience (with D and other languages).
>>>
>>> I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little
>>> with the soruce for either, but these are my (unreliable)
>>> impressions of it:
>>> C++ is a complex monster,
>>
>> Ah, yes, but I have an incling that D is also.. but it is "just" an
>> incling (read, a pretty good "guess").
>
> D is complex, but not as complex as C++ (my opinion). There is less
> complexity due to overcoming language limitation than there is in
> C++.
>
>>> and has a lot of bizarre complexity in
>>> areas that really shouldn't need to be so complex.
>>
>> It has to appease C programmers (and the C codebase) though. (One
>> must ask if C programmers have a fountain of youth coded up
>> somewhere to hang on so long!).
>>
>>> D cleans up much
>>> of that.
>>
>> Give me 3 examples.
>
> 3 examples, excluding CTFE:
> 1) D does not impose full compatibility with C (i.e., whereas C++
> compilers also compile C, a D compiler may link to C binaries, but
> only compiles a "clean" subset of C). As a result, there are no
> preprocessor macros in D. Instead, you have the version statement,
> which is much simpler and organizes your code more. 2) D has cleaner
> templates syntax as well as semantics: for example, you have a class
> X(T) syntax which is much clearer for generic classes. 3) My personal
> favorite, the standard D IO library has a much cleaner syntax than
> C++. No more shift operators for streams, simple functions with a
> built-in option for C-style formatted output.
>
>>> But that cleanup gives D room for additional, but "cleaner",
>>> things to be added, like CTFE.
>>
>> I don't know "CTFE"... Compile Time... something? (Template
>> masturbation?).
>
> CTFE (Compile Time Function Execution), together with other nice
> things such as the static if statement, actually eliminates template
> masturbation from the language. The compiler implicitly optimizes and
> executes functions at compile-time, whenever it can.
>
>>> So they're both complex compared to
>>> the average "minimalism"-driven langauge,
>>
>> You mean scripting languages? Cuz those are in a separate category.
>> But some level of comparison with those is valid for sure, for they
>> are probably rewriting the rules moreso than the bit-level language
>> endeavors.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, and up for debate. Statically typed
> languages like D still have their own place. To each their own, I
> guess.
>
>>> but D makes more effective
>>> use of complexity. One "unit of complexity" gives you more benefit
>>> in D.
>>
>> If that is so, it could be shown. (A little Devil's Advocate).
>
> Read above, and the language documentation. D is designed with the
> experienced C++ programmer in mind.
>
>>>
>>> Of course, this is a D newsgroup, so naturally we're going to be a
>>> bit more in favor of D, anyway, FWIW.
>>
>> Well the "in the paint" ones, maybe you. But surely most people here
>> have to make a living and program in other languages and I'd be
>> interested in opinions from those rather than the "in the paint"
>> ones.
>
> You can always ask in other language newsgroups, but always expect
> some bias, depending on whose "side" the people who answer you are
> in. :)

It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk.