Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[Walter Bright]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> It took 5 years for a C++98 compliant compiler to emerge. 
>> Extrapolating to C++09, that would be 2014 to get features that 
>> existed in D years ago. I obviously gave up waiting for such features 
>> from C++ long ago.
> 
> Well, that's true, but when comparing availability C++09 vs D, you 
> should perhaps be a little more forgiving, given that D isn't quite done 
> either.  Sure, some C++09 features are available in D now,

Nearly all of them are, and D has quite a bit that isn't even on the 
horizon for C++. I should draw up a chart...

> but some are 
> also available in g++ now, I believe.  And there are some features 
> slated for  C++ 09 that aren't on the roadmap for D at all (like 
> concepts

Concepts aren't a whole lot more than interface specialization, which is 
already supported in D.

> and thread stuff), which might appear in some C++ compiler 
> before they appear D.  Furthermore, I'm pretty sure some partially 
> conforming C++98 compilers existed before the end of 93,

Partial, sure, including mine <g>.

> so what I'm 
> trying to say with all this is that if you're a programmer who's willing 
> to work with an incompatible language that is has an ever-evolving spec, 
> then you're probably also willing to use a bleeding edge C++ compiler 
> that only partially supports the C++09 spec.  So there may be less of a 
> wait than 2014 for the sort of bleeding edgers who would be interested 
> in D in the first place.  But either way its still infinitely more 
> waiting than "download and use it right now" -- the current situation 
> with D.

Yes. And D 2.0 isn't standing still, either.