C++

[BCS]

Mike Parker wrote:
> clayasaurus wrote:
> 
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>>> "David Medlock" <noone at nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:e819r5$h8i$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>> Read my post on LTU and snk_kid's response:
>>>
>>>
>>> snk_kid is just another C++ fanboy.  I'm dealing with him on 
>>> gamedev.net too.
>>>
>>
>> link?
> 
> 
> Shame on you, Clay, for not keeping up with my blog!
> 
> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=400729

Interesting, in both places snk_kid keeps harping on his claim that "D 
is a failed attempt to be truely better than C++ in *all aspects* which 
it isn't."

Where did he get that impression????

I have never seen anyone else make the claim that D is trying to be 
better than anything in *all* respects. Walter doesn't claim this. And 
considering it is provable that it can't be done, It would be stupid for 
anyone to claim that.

Also, in places he argues that D will not take over because it can't do 
something that C++ programmers do. This is only a problem if you try to 
wright C++ programs in D. The question shouldn't be: "Can the language 
generate this construct?", it should be: "How easy is it to solve this 
problem in this language?".

D isn't a better C++. No programming language can be a better C++. D is 
trying to be a better *Programming Language*.