A gentle critque..

[jcc7]

In article <e4a4q4$27d3$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Cooley says...
>
>Hi Lars,
>
>I'm rooting around for a more practical language that can be integrated into a
>very large mixed C/C++ codebase.  D just can't do what I need it to do, and >it's really too bad because I have followed D and really actually do like it.
>
>The code base we work with has several problems, one being the inclusion of >more than 20 external C and C plus plus third party libraries, as well as >utilization of the linux and windows api's.  And more importantly occasional >instability due to the use of C unsafe programming practices.
>
>I'm posting this because I suspect that the quiet majority of C plus plus
>programmers out there agree with me.  We simply aren't interested in
>participating in a crusade to make D popular.  We just want something that can
>do what we really need, and there are an awful lot of C and C plus plus projects
>out there that depend on being able to parse C and C plus plus headers and
>likely always will be.
>
>I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I really don't expect anyone to agree
>necessarily.  Just want to put forward my opinion as to what made a language
>like C plus plus with its radical new programming paradigm popular.. and how D
>deviates from this path.

It just seems like your "gentle critique" of D is that it needs to inherit the
whole of monster full C/C++ compatibility. And add more meta-programming
capabilities. And add more safety. And finalize the standard (which I guess is
an imaginary that exists only in your mind since D is already so far away from
what you want). And create more libraries (but why would more libraries be
needed if it were so compatible to C/C++?).

So in short, I can't tell that you actually like anything about what D currently
is, so you might as well design your dream language from scratch because I don't
think that D has anything to offer you. (So why are you here anyway?)

jcc7