On the richness of C++

[Bill Baxter]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> I read
> 
> http://www.nwcpp.org/Downloads/2007/redcode_-_updated.pdf
> 
> and upon reading it I got thinking of something else. Those familiar 
> with C++ (aren't we all?) probably sometimes come across things that 
> somebody has done in C++ that are simply stunning. Things that one would 
> have thought would need a new language, or maybe just be impossible to 
> implement at all. I know I have. (A lot of Boost stuff is like that, 
> originally the STL got me breathless, but there's a lot that's not 
> template related, too.)
> 
> Is it just paranoia, or is C++ still more flexible and expressive than D?
> 
> Are there still things you can do in C++ that are impossible or too 
> awkward to do in D?
> 
> Of course, I don't mean Obfuscated C(++). While that definitely 
> demonstrates the unfathomable agility of the language, I'm only talking 
> about serious, non-juvenile stuff.

Structs would be my vote for the area where C++ is more flexible and 
expressive than D.  But Walter realizes this and it's on the plate. 
Some sort of destructor support was added in the last update, and 
inheritance was promised in the slides at last year's D conference.  So 
D will catch up in that arena.

Metaprogramming is definitely the area where D is light years ahead of C++.

--bb