3 ms·
While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia (c.f static if, modules, ranges, attributes that were proposed for C++ that
by nicwilson 9y ago
While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia (c.f static if, modules, ranges, attributes that were proposed for C++ that either failed to get in or are nowhere near as useful. I can't make do without any of those). The agility of D by by comparison is one of its greatest strengths.
- geezerjay 9y ago> While C++ standardisation hay have gathered momentum, it still has enormous inertia That's pretty much irrelevant. The last couple of standards already updated C++ so that it covered all aspects that were deal-breakers decisions on whether to pick up C++ or any alternative whose selling point was being an updated C++. After C++11 (and now C++17) no one in their right mind would decide to rewrite a whole project because of static ifs. Moreover the irrelevance of D is the only reason why it's trivial to reinvent D when it suits anyone's fancy. A committee of experts deciding on what goes into a standard is not the same as a developer deciding on a whim on what he might implement next. If D was relevant and it's adoption motivated an ISO standard to coordinate which features went into any implementation then I seriously doubt that it would do better than C++.