Just where has this language gone wrong?

[Paulo Pinto]

>"Stuart"  wrote in message news:nnyvtncaxpgnjtklvyhd at forum.dlang.org...
>On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 15:56:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 23.07.2012 14:49, schrieb Stuart:
>>> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 22:16:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> C++ is living in the 70's.
>>>
>>> Precisely what I have been thinking. It's a loose wrapper around
>>> assembly, nothing more. Certainly not the "high-level language"
>>> it's touted as.
>>
>> Only due to the lack of modules.
>>
>> Everything else is a pretty modern language I would say.
>
>Hardly. No RTTI. No GC. No properties. No events. No closures. No extension 
>methods. No interfaces. No writable references.
>
>I can live without a GC; and interfaces can be simulated using pure virtual 
>base classes; but all the others are standard in pretty much any modern 
>language and impossible to reproduce in C++.


RTTI is available last time I checked. Sure it is not a full reflection 
runtime,
but from my daily job experience with Enterprise Architecture with 
reflection everywhere
in JVM and .NET languages, not sure if C++ really needs a full reflection 
API.

GC is optional since C++11, sure it a nice to have, but reference pointers 
alleviate a bit the issue.

Extension methods are nice, but if you look at our Enterprise Architectures, 
they can surely be
abused to death, monkey patch hurray!

Interfaces are only required as such in languages that don't support MI.

If you need a writable references use pointers.

--
Paulo