I wish that were true, unfortunately C++ is copying many of the superficial aspects of D and making many mistakes along the way mostly because of the bitter pis

I wish that were true, unfortunately C++ is copying many of the superficial aspects of D and making many mistakes along the way mostly because of the bitter pissing contest that exists between the two communities and can largely be traced back to this paper: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n361... Admittedly there are a ton of things I don't like about D and overall I find the language to be quite unprincipled and just a kitchen sink of poor mismatched features... but certainly there are some things D does exceptionally well and C++ should have learned from them to avoid about a decade worth of lost productivity. Things like modules, ranges, template constraints, static if, compile time execution are all much cleaner in D than what C++ has and with every new C++ standard it turns out that things are broken, defect reports have to be published, there are serious quality of implementation issues and the features just don't work as well in actual production grade projects compared to the tiny and artificial examples one reads in a blog post to show off the feature. But it's taboo to learn from D, or virtually any other language, with the mantra that "C++ is not like other languages, it's just soooo unique and special that what works for language Foo won't possibly work for C++." and so instead C++ has to reinvent everything in a half-assed manner and repeat many mistakes that others have already learned from.