D vs C++11

[Era Scarecrow]

On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 22:02:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> So whenever D is a viable option, I always go for it because I 
> find it to be vastly superior, even to C++11 (which is merely 
> "slightly less crappy than old C++", IMO). And then when I 
> *have* to use C++, I do so while wishing I was doing it in D.

  I remember trying to read and learn C++ years and years ago. Got 
a headache just trying to read & understand it (2005ish). It felt 
like it wasn't consistent with C, it was ugly, friend functions 
never quite made sense, the default 'streams' library should have 
been written differently (It was originally an example class 
correct?)

  Let's see what else. Headers, document twice, virtual has to be 
explicitly declared so inheritance is more limited. Constructors 
had to be the same name as the class, just a bunch of things that 
didn't quite seem like they fit right.

  Reading/learning how the STL works they based everything off 
pointers (which makes some sense) but rather than make a new type 
and work on that they tried to make that backwards compatible 
with C, so to use iterators you simulate a pointer.

  I can understand it's limitations on systems back when memory 
and drive space was scarce, but we're way past that now.

  "Polish a turd, it's still a turd!" -- Peanut