C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Don]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Tony" <tonytech08 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:genht8$2fcg$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
>> news:gel5tu$1a1v$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> "Clay Smith" <clayasaurus at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:gej5nr$13jd$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Tony wrote:
>>>>> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the 
>>>>> subject of this post).
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>> Technically, I'd consider C++ to be undead. Old, ugly, its zombie 
>>>> rotting flesh never seems to die. It lives by eating the brains of C 
>>>> programmers.
>>>>
>>>> ~ Clay
>>> Funny you mention that, the analogies I normally think of for C++ are 
>>> either a 120+ year-old on life support or, as you said, the living dead. 
>>> It's long past it's time, but people just won't let it finally rest 
>>> (probably because, aside from D, there's no modern language that's a 
>>> suitable replacement for C++ in *all* of C++'s use-cases. C# and Java, 
>>> for instance, are only partial replacements. They can handle many of 
>>> C++'s uses, but not all.)
>> The "in *all* of C++'s use-cases" part is probably the way to create a 
>> dinosaur (call it E, F or G or whatever). The concept of "general purpose 
>> language" is getting a bit long-toothed?
>>
>> Tony
> 
> I strongly disagree. The concept of domain-specific languages is 
> ultra-trendy these days (probably promoted by the same knuckleheads that 
> hailed things like pure-OO, pure-functional, and Extreme Programming as 
> silver bullets). But I consider domain-specific languages to be purely a 
> symptom of a strong need for a better general purpose language.

Yeah. Domain-specific languages used to be really popular. I can 
remember when everyone invented their own language for saving 
configuration settings, for example <g>. It's symptomatic of an absence 
of a decent standard.

> I'd *much* rather use a true general-purpose language (which, again, C++ is 
> no longer an example of) than muck around with 500 different languages for 
> every stupid little thing.
> 
> For example, have you ever tried doing web development? 
 > Considering the
> conceptual simplicity of the web, that's just absolutely pathetic. 

Amen. IMHO, it's one of the great failures of the software industry.
I find it incredible that we've ended up with a situation which is so 
dreadful.