> I think a lot of people would argue that many C++ features, like OO, are not strictly improvements. Sure, but D has those OO features, too, so that's an argu

> I think a lot of people would argue that many C++ features, like OO, are not strictly improvements. Sure, but D has those OO features, too, so that's an argument against both, not one. > like that it's nice not to have to pass around array lengths as separate variables. -betterC doesn't have dynamic arrays, though. That's one of the "unavailable features" currently. But that's also sommething C++ solved as well - std::vector does exist, after all, as does move semantics to avoid copying it unnecessarily. C++ is far from perfect, of course, but D's -betterC doesn't really fix any of C++'s issues and it doesn't retain C's simplicity. It's in an awkward middle ground between the two - is that really a viable place to be? For users that already know & have C++ codebases, what's the sales pitch here? For existing C users, what does -betterC do that hasn't already been done and already failed to attract the C holdouts?