4 ms·
> and they are not looking for a better C++ And that's precisely why D fails. D was marketed as nothing more than C++'s successor, right down to the naming ch
by geezerjay 9y ago
> and they are not looking for a better C++
And that's precisely why D fails. D was marketed as nothing more than C++'s successor, right down to the naming choice. No one is looking for a better C++, therefore no one bothers with D.
Meanwhile, those who have to work with C++ keep their eyes in the C++ standardization process. Since D's inception, the C++ standardization committee already produced three standards which oddly enough do include stuff that is sought after by the C++ community.
- kal31dic 9y agoD was marketed as 'Mars', but for some reason people insisted on calling it 'D' instead, and Walter relented and changed the name of the language. It's great that C++ is catching up. It's almost got static if, except not because it introduces a new scope. Maybe next time... The C++ programmers I know are attached to native code, but not exactly content with C++. Ethan Watson of Remedy Games (Quantum Break) said "we are an industry looking for salvation".