C++

[kris]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>>
>> Another problem happens when people try to transliterate C++ code into 
>> D. That doesn't work very well - you have to rethink things a bit.
> 
> 
> In my experience, transliterating C++ to D allows for a lot of code to 
> simply be tossed out.  It's issues like this that aren't obvious from 
> simply reading a spec.
> 
>> Nevertheless, I still regard D as a better C++. Not in terms of being 
>> a true superset, but in terms of being a better solution to the same 
>> types of problems that C++ is targetted at. Note that C++ isn't a true 
>> superset of C, either, although it is billed as a "better C".
> 
> 
> I've yet to do the same level of work in D that I do in C++, but so far 
> I'd have to agree.  And I'm looking forward to some more ambitious 
> projects once the framework is sorted out sufficiently.
> 
> That said, I do think D's lack of any sort of const checking may be an 
> issue for large projects (I haven't done this level of development in 
> Java so I don't have a good non-C++ basis for comparison here).  I know 
> the issue has been beaten to death in the past, but perhaps we could do 
> with a constructive discussion before 1.0 appears on the horizon?  I've 
> become convinced that the "default everything to const" method seems 
> ideal, but this seems like something that should really be done before 
> 1.0 if it's going to happen?
> 
> 
> Sean

As someone with a substantial body of D code, I'd be happy to retrofit 
the whole darned thing to get const. I'd say "go for it" (as long as it 
supports returning an array as a const, without .dup being involved)