Why is D unpopular?

[Ali Çehreli]

On 4/30/22 16:10, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
 > On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 21:41:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 >> Confusing that C++ proposal with D's CTFE makes me desperate. :( C++
 >> is attempting to go one step beyond C preprocessor constants there.
 >> "Compile-time function execution" is a couple of decades beyond that
 >> simplicity.
 >
 > 2003: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1471.pdf

Good old days... I have a pre-release copy of David's templates book 
that he plugs in that presentation. (I used to help organize ACCU C++ 
meetings in Silicon Valley so I had the privilege of reading review 
copies of C++ books including that one).

I am very well aware of every single template metaprogramming technique 
that you could do with C++03 and I did use many of them in production. 
(Oh, I was so clever.)

But I don't remember the 'metacode' in that presentation. It must not 
have caught on. (?)

 > An iso standard cannot absorb every single proposal, you also need all
 > vendors on board, and there should be industry demand. Lots of
 > "promising" ideas are thrown around, but language evolution of
 > production languages should be conservative and not move forward until
 > you have multiple independent implementations. There is a cost 
involved...
 >
 > What C++ does right is that they complete the features they spec out. At
 > the end if the day, that is more important than absorbing cute/clever
 > proposals.

Those are very wise but misplaced words. You are responding to a 
paragraph where I said confusing C++'s constexpr function proposal with 
D's CTFE gives me desperation.

Let me say it in plain words to those who may take your ISO references 
as proof against what I said: C++ does not have anything that comes 
close to D's CTFE.

Maybe you are saying that ISO will eventually produce something in the 
future (C++35 maybe?). I agree.

Ali