4 ms·

It was proposed by Walter and denied by Stroustroup, probably to save C++. Karma hits back and he is trying to save C++ from Rust.

• pjmlp 1y ago
  People keep forgetting C++ design is driven by 300+ people, and the features that get into the language go to elections, that they have to win. Stroustoup has one vote, not everything he advocates for wins votes, including having a saner C++ (Remember the Vasa paper).
• motorest 1y ago
  > It was proposed by Walter and denied by Stroustroup, probably to save C++. Citation needed. For starters, where is the paper?
  • shakna 1y ago
    Well, there's this list Stroustrup offers, of systems in C++ that he would reject: [0] [0] https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0977r0.pdf https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0977r0...
    • pjmlp 1y ago
      One vote, C++ isn't a BDFL driven language. Also WG14 famously killed Dennis Ritchie proposal to add fat pointers to C. Language authors only have symbolic value once they relish control to a standards body.
• WalterBright 1y ago
  D is the result of lack of interest by the C++ committee, and I had little interest in spending literally years trying to get useful things adopted into C++. Ironically, over the years, C++ has adopted many features popularized by D. (like contracts!) C++ should adopt a few more D features, like https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html, compile time expression evaluation (C++ did it wrong), forward references, and modules that work. C++ should also deprecate the preprocessor, a stone-age kludge that has long been obsolete.
  • motorest 1y ago
    > D is the result of lack of interest by the C++ committee, and I had little interest in spending literally years trying to get useful things adopted into C++. I think you are leaving out the fact that your comment applies to the post-C++98/pre-C++11 hiatus. Once C++11 was released, the truth of the matter is that whatever steam D managed to build up, it fizzed out. I'm also not sure if it's accurate to frame the problem with C++0x as picking up features from D. As I recall, D's selling point was that it was scrambling to provide the features covered by C++0x but users weren't forced to wait for a standard to be published to be able to use them. Once they could, there was no longer any compelling reason to bother with D anymore.
    • WalterBright 1y ago
      C++ is still trying to catch up with: - compile time function execution - modules - no preprocessor - memory safe arrays - preprocessor replacement - ranges and so on.
      • motorest 1y ago
        > C++ is still trying to catch up with (...) C++ modules are indeed a mess, but you are fooling yourself if you believe that the preprocessor of all things is a compelling reason to switch. In fact, I think you unwittingly proved my point on how interest in D fizzed out the moment C++11 was released.
        • WalterBright 1y ago
          > if you believe that the preprocessor of all things is a compelling reason to switch The preprocessor is an unhygienic, ugly mess. Just look at the system .h files, which should be a showcase on how to use it correctly. I stand by my assessment of it.
      • 72deluxe 1y ago
        As I am oblivious to D, may I ask if there are suitable GUI toolkits for it, or bindings? I typically use wxWidgets in C++ land.