Yes, 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 y

Yes, 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).