Phobo's migration

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 12:37:58 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> Design by committee usually produces subpar or bland results 
> and is painfully slow to boot, and IIRC is one of the reasons 
> Walter created D: to get away from the C++ standards committee.

The output of a committe is as good as the people on it and what 
those people can agree on. The strength of the C++ standards 
committee is that they have sufficient diversity to cover many 
fields and enough resistance to limit most unnecessary additions 
to the standard library. The output of the C++ committee over the 
past decade has been decent IMO. The core issues in C++ is 
related to C compatibility which also is its core strength, 
backwards compatibility.

Unfortunately D has become stuck in the same kind of 
compatibility backwaters, but without reaping the benefits that 
C++ has.

Some C++ advantages that D does not have:

- Multiple independent compiler vendors pushing the envelope.
- Alternative independent foundational library 
frameworks/repositories.

So in C++ you have many language features being tested in 
production years or decades before they are added to the standard.

In D the design is tested after being added to the "implicit 
standard" of DMD/Phobos.