Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[eao197]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:31:59 +0400, Jari-Matti Mäkelä  
<jmjmak at utu.fi.invalid> wrote:

>>> I would put my hopes on the macros, type system and other  
>>> metaprogramming
>>> stuff.
>>
>> If someone really need flexible macro- and metaprogramming-subsystem it  
>> is
>> better to look to Nemerle.
>
> It isn't well suited for system programming.

What kind of system programming? Writting compilers and writting drivers  
are examples of system programming, but Nemerle is well suited for the  
first, but not the second. Is low-level system programming (like drivers  
really need macros or/and metaprogramming)?

>>> Those are areas in which C++ doesn't really shine.
>>
>> IMHO, macro and metaprogramming are areas which C++ simply does not  
>> need.
>> It is much easyer to write some small codegeneration script in
>> Perl/Ruby/Python and include its result into C++ via '#include'.
>
> Is it better for each C++ coder to write his own domain-specific build  
> tool
> to solve exactly the same problem than bolt that functionality to the  
> core
> language?

There are more modern than make build tools (like Scons) which make  
pre-compile-time code generation more smoothly task.

And after years of C++ development I've came to conclusion that usage of  
C++ and some scripting language (like Ruby) is more flexible, easy and  
fast than usage of only one main language (like C++/Java).

> In case you haven't noticed,
> there are already 18+ GUI toolkit bindings/implementations (according to
> wiki4d) for D and D is 41 years younger than Lisp.

Do you think that 18+ GUI bindings is good thing?
I know that D has two standard libraries and this is not good at all :(

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau