3 ms·
> there’s also the general feeling that the D creators’ vision of what a fixed C++ looks like is just vastly different from mine I have emphasized for years th
by bachmeier 4y ago
> there’s also the general feeling that the D creators’ vision of what a fixed C++ looks like is just vastly different from mine
I have emphasized for years that D is not C++. It can be used as a replacement for C++, in the sense that it does the same things, but it is not accurate to call it a "fixed C++". So many times I have seen C++ programmers disappointed that D is not C++. On the other hand, if you're a C programmer, you'll probably be comfortable writing D code. I think of D and C++ as incompatible forks of C.
- WalterBright 4y ago> So many times I have seen C++ programmers disappointed that D is not C++. More generally, every time I learn a new language, it is always frustrating, because I cannot write the same thing in the new language that I was used to writing in the old. It takes time until one starts thinking in terms of the new language, and only then will the frustration fade.
- SilentLambda 4y agoYes, we can agree that D is not like C++ - not at all. The reason C++ programmers are usually disappointed, is because D gets marketed as such (it's the bait you need to get them to look at D afterall). In fact, even on the basic class type, C++ and D are really miles apart. Make no mistake about this - they are miles apart, even on this one construct (the same contruct for there being a C++ in the first place). It is clear when you use D, that it wasn't designed to be like C++. D does have a subset that is C like, and that's primarly because it is, in essence, C. So D is D. D is not at all like C++. A subset of D is like C (cause it is - more or less - C).