Why do C++ programmers are not interested in D?
russel at winder.org.uk
Tue Nov 19 10:57:20 UTC 2019
On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 09:28 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Unfortunately, D is not a better C++. Most notably, it has a GC,
> and much of the functionality of the standard library has
> historically required using the GC. Second, it doesn't work with
> legacy C++ code. That's changing, but it's a big issue.
That many C++ developers have an obsessive fear of the words garbage collector
is clearly an issue, independent of whether GC is actually an issue for their
Java (and thus Kotlin, Groovy, Clojure, Scala, etc.) and Go, and indeed to a
lesser extent D, have shown that GC is a very positive way forward in
C++ folk are showing an inability to think of languages other than C++, so it
seems fair enough to stop worrying about trying to replicate C++ in D. The
languages have diverged and that is fine.
That Rust has gained so little traction amongst C++ programmers is further
evidence that the era of D as Better C++ is long past. D is D and should stop
D's future is not to replace C++, it is to be D; a language like Go that draws
positively on the past, harnesses GC, and moves forward in that spirit.
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Digitalmars-d