C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Piotrek]

Tony wrote:

> [...] I would say that languages like C++ and D 
> ARE the specialized ("domain specific") languages rather then the "general 
> purpose" ones. Consider them as "where/when you need high level assembly 
> language type of tool". Everyone who invents "the better C++" ends up in the 
> same category as that overly complex, for a GP language, language.

I also see a GP language strictly connected with processors way of 
"thinking" and operating  with memory but with ability of switching to 
higher level (on demand) to ovoid using tons of primitives. If well 
deigned it can utilize computer to *everything* you need - without 
pain-in-ass.

Or one may say:

> "General Purpose Language" may indeed be an oxymoron. (All kinds of jokes 
> noting 'GPL', omitted).

IMHO D is a better stage of what we can call: general propose language.

>> (C++) These days it's a systems/performance language instead.
> 
> And not a very influential one at that, which really bogs down development.
> 

Until D. Give me example of a language where you can develop 
faster/esier (besides IDE infrastructure).

Cheers