Whoa. Is this a good thing... or a really bad one? Not sure. C++ is complicated enough. Then again, CL is pretty complicated too, yet it's what I would qualify

Whoa. Is this a good thing... or a really bad one? Not sure. C++ is complicated enough. Then again, CL is pretty complicated too, yet it's what I would qualify as a beautiful language. I personally feel that C++ is a language that doesn't truly belong anywhere - it isn't pure, clean, and low-level, like C, and it isn't completely high-level. Somehow, I don't think that you can easily 'mix' these two. I'm mildly surprised that they haven't added an optional GC yet - I seem to remember reading somewhere that even Bjarne Stourstrop advocated one. Maybe, instead of making "C++0x", they should just make D an ISO standard... From what I've seen, D is basically C++ cleaned up, and every time I look at it, I want to use it instead even more. Check it out if you haven't already. And it deals flawlessly with legacy C++ and C code, too, so there's really not many reasons to avoid it. Oh, and C++ templates are just ugly. I'm reminded of them whenever I see Java generics too, and let's just say those aren't too nice on the eyes either. Maybe they should add programmatic macros too. And a pinch of Perl's default variables!