Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 19:04:20 Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 18:28:20 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> > On 12/20/2017 01:14 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> > > from developers that learned it before C++98 and
> > > can't care less what is being discussed on Reddit and HN.
> >
> > I don't blame them one bit because keeping up with C++ and
> > learning C++ Core Guidelines is a tremendous task:
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuideline
> > s.md
> >
> > I keep starting writing replies here about C++ Core Guidelines
> > but I delete them after counting to ten. Not this time... :)
> >
> > I think it's a psychological phenomenon worthy of scientific
> > interest how a craft with so many guidelines can still be
> > accepted. I am baffled how otherwise wonderful and smart people
> > can direct others to that document with a straight face, let
> > alone market it as one of the greatest gifts to C++ programmers
> > (cf. CppCon 2015 keynotes by Herb Sutter and Bjarne Stroustrup.)
>
> Mostly because it is an easier path to get people to migrate to
> safer coding practices than doing a full reboot, no one wants to
> do a Python 2 to Python 3.

I think that the reality of the matter is that such a shift for C++ is
pointless. If you're going to break backwards compatability, you're breaking
one of C++'s greatest strengths. At that point, you might as well go to D or
Rust or some other language that's tried to fill C++'s shoes - or invent
another new language that attempts it. C++ can be improved, and on the
whole, they have been doing exactly that, but fundamentally, they really
can't fix it without going against some of the main reasons why many folks
stick with C++ in the first place.

- Jonathan M Davis