Just an example, why D rocks, and C++ s***s...

[IGotD-]

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 11:56:33 UTC, bauss wrote:
>
> D aims a lot to be general purpose, C++ aims to be flexible and 
> usable in all areas, even low-level or obscure systems.
>
> Thus D standard library makes a lot of decisions and 
> assumptions for the users and locks users within those 
> guidelines mostly.
>
> C++ doesn't make a lot of decisions or assumptions about the 
> user, everything is mostly left up to the user to decide how 
> they want to do a specific thing.
>
> So if you want total control and freedom, then you'll end up 
> with something like what C++ offers anyway.

There is nothing stopping C++ from implementing a read function 
similar to D and it can coexist together with the existing 
interface. I think it is some kind of tradition preventing the 
standard library to be user friendly. Many companies use Qt-core 
(despite they don't use any GUI part of it) instead because that 
library is more usable .

Also the idea that std::istreambuf_iterator<char>() is a good 
name for an end iterator further proves that point. There must be 
another better name for it though.