C++ to catch up?

[monarch_dodra]

On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
> "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
>> adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
>> template contraints etc.
>> 
>> Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
>> 
>
>
> Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still 
> be much
> cleaner. (IMO)

C++'s "range" is actually a wrapper over an iterator "first-last" 
pair. While it does bring the convenience of D's ranges to C++, 
it remains hobbled in terms of efficiency and implementation. 
C++'s paradigm is pointers and iterators. At best, you can 
sparkle some ranges over it, but you'll never shift the paradigm.

--------
The thing with C++'s new feature is that it requires developers 
to be on the bleeding edge of C++ knowledge. It's fine for the 
enthusiasts that read programming journals on their week-ends 
(like you and I), but not for the standard developer. Not to 
mention, even then, the syntax is hard as hell: lambdas in for 
loops? I have to look up the syntax every time. automatic type 
inference of the return value of a function? "auto foo() -> 
declype(...)", what...?

All these functionalities are great, but also out of reach. Most 
of my colleagues still struggle with "simple" design patters such 
as strategies, or just plain algorithms with functors. Everytime 
I say something like "awesome, C++ will allow type inference" or 
"yay, RValue references!" they look at me like I'm some kind of 
weird space alien...

--------
D packages the whole thing in an easy to use but complete 
package. C++ just stacks complicated stuff on top of a hard to 
use core.