D - more or less power than C++?

[Walter Bright]

"Johan Granberg" <lijat.meREM at OVEgmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dubpge$u3r$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>> 1. const parameters and member functions
>>> Countless times this saved me. I just can't imagine references being
>>> passed in and out of functions without something explicitly saying that
>>> the function is expected or not to modify it.
> You did not answer the above statement and i have seen this repeated all 
> over this thread along with destructors in structs.

Because the const thing has been endlessly thrashed about in other threads.

> I will not repeat all the arguments but to me this is important issues.
> If i should rank the most showstoping things in D (from my perspective) it 
> would be
> 1. bugs
> 2. as far as I know no way of inporting somthing in a parent directory (as 
> C++ #include "../myheader.hpp")

The -I compiler switch can specify the "root" from whence all the packages 
derive.

> 3. read only sematics that work as a strong reminder that one is not 
> suposed to modify somthing (but can bee subverted by a cast)
> 4. overlodable assignment and copy constructors.
> 5. library and other minor issues
>
>>> 4. library
>>> ...
>> I don't find the STL compelling, either, and that's the only library 
>> thing standard C++ has over libc. Furthermore, large chunks of STL are 
>> simply irrelevant in D because D has core arrays, strings, and 
>> associative arrays.
>
> I agree on this one. So wath is your plan for the D standard library?

Keep incrementally improving it. Is there anything in particular you feel is 
missing?