core.stdcpp

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 10:57:10 UTC, eles wrote:
> For me, what it would be really nice to have in C from C++ 
> would be templates.
> And from D, that scope().

When I think about it, I think one of the reasons for going from 
C to C++ in visualization/games was that 3D operations in C are 
unreadable. With operator overloading it got better.

Of course, the C compiler could just have been extended with 
basic arithmetic operators on fixed size arrays… and added SIMDy 
alignment.

I think C was a little late with adding needed features, that 
gave C++ room for marketing itself.

> The problem with starting designing (and implementing) 
> frameworks instead of languages is that you have to keep up 
> with everything and to never cease expanding. New needs will 
> appear, new paradigms (platforms, distributed systems and so 
> on) and you will have to play the game.

Yep, that is true.

> It is OK to provide extensive standard library, but not put too 
> much into the language (and, for me, the druntime shall be seen 
> as part of the language, not of the framework).

The problem is that once you go for RTTI and GC then the runtime 
is already quite big, so adding one piece to it does not seem 
like a big deal…

I think a language like D is best suited for things that can be 
resolved at compile time than the more dynamic stuff.

I'd rather see whole program analysis and as much static features 
as possible than all the dynamic aspects and the runtime 
requirements that come with it…

That would give the project more focus and make it more suitable 
for real system level programming.

> But, still. Even Java and C# have a separation between the 
> language and the framework, more than, for example, Go has.

Yes, they compile to a medium level IR.