Enough D to Make a Living?

[Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d]

On 22/02/17 13:26, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 at 09:09:45 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> Learning C++, then D, then Rust for example will have benefit because
>> there are new things there even though the core computational model is
>> effectively the same – they have differences that matter.
>
> Maybe. I think "modern" C++ is a in class of it's own at this point. It
> is now quite detached from it's root: C with classes.

I feel slightly bad for sending you to read through the whole of 
http://lbrandy.com/blog/2010/03/never-trust-a-programmer-who-says-he-knows-c/ 
before getting to the punchline on the last sentence, but on the plus 
side, it is very short.

On a slightly different note, "C with classes" is the name of C++'s 
predecessor, which was a preprocessor. Strastrup draws a very distinct 
line between that and the first C++ compiler (cfront).

> the computational model as for all the patterns you ought to follow and
> not nearly enough constraints from the compiler on what you should not
> do.

That is a matter of perspective. I, for one, feel other languages put 
too much constraints on, making me work quite hard to get what I want 
expressed in the language, often blocking me from the most efficient 
implementation altogether.

D is better in that regard than many, but still weights on me on occasion.

> With modern C++ you either have to go for being proficient or end up
> feeling miserable. Which is quite different from most imperative
> languages I think.

Which is precisely why it is not a good language to start with unless 
you intend to stick with it. This is not a language mastered quickly, 
and superficial knowledge of it really is a dangerous thing. There is no 
point in aiming to learn it superficially.

Shachar