3 ms·

i believe he'd be happier with D, which addresses a lot of the issues he had with go, and which can genuinely be used as a better C++.

by zem 14y ago

luriel 14y ago
Many people are not looking for a "better C++", in the land of C++ it seems "better" means "more features", and some of us are not interested in more features, but in a better selection of fewer useful features. See Rob Pike's essay on this very topic and the design of Go: http://commandcenter.blogspot.nl/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html http://commandcenter.blogspot.nl/2012/06/less-is-exponential...
- qznc 14y ago
  The goals of C++ are performance and abstraction and I do not know any language which beats it in both points. I appreciate "small" languages, which can do a lot with a little core and abstraction mechanisms (Scheme,Smalltalk,...). However, for maximum performance, you need a good compiler, which understands and optimizes your abstractions. In the case of Lisp, whoever writes the macros is also responsible for optimizing them. Unfortunately, this requires application programmers to be also good in writing compilers. C++ certainly has deficiencies, which cannot be fixed without completely breaking backwards compatibility. Rob Pike probably has them all included in the list you linked to. E.g. irregular syntax and header files. In my opinion D has mostly fixed those conceptual issues. Unfortunately, D is not mature [0] and development is slow. While D is certainly not the final word in language design, I consider it the only serious competitor to C++. [0] http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=20 http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=20
- zem 14y ago
  have you taken a look at D? it cleans up a lot of c++ warts, while not being any more kitchen-sinky.
- batista 14y ago
  >Many people are not looking for a "better C++", in the land of C++ it seems "better" means "more features", and some of us are not interested in more features, but in a better selection of fewer useful features. This is a knee jerk cliche reaction. D is much better designed than C++.
lucian1900 14y ago
Or perhaps Rust, which is both simpler than D and has more features in common with Go.
- zem 14y ago
  yes, i'm looking forward eagerly to rust, especially because it has algebraic datatypes and pattern matching. not sure how it will stack up to D speedwise, though.
  - pcwalton 14y ago
    What in particular are you not sure about in terms of performance? With the exception of segmented stacks, Rust adheres to the zero-cost principle just as C++ does.
    - zem 14y ago
      not any expensive-looking features per se, simply that from looking at new languages, especially the ones with powerful features, speed is the hardest and usually the last thing to be achieved. i think ats is the only exception i've seen to that.

i believe he'd be happier with D, which addresses a lot of the issues he had with go, and which can genuinely be used as a better C++.

by zem 14y ago

i believe he'd be happier with D, which addresses a lot of the issues he had with go, and which can genuinely be used as a better C++.

luriel 14y ago

Many people are not looking for a "better C++", in the land of C++ it seems "better" means "more features", and some of us are not interested in more features, but in a better selection of fewer useful features. See Rob Pike's essay on this very topic and the design of Go: http://commandcenter.blogspot.nl/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html http://commandcenter.blogspot.nl/2012/06/less-is-exponential...

qznc 14y ago
The goals of C++ are performance and abstraction and I do not know any language which beats it in both points. I appreciate "small" languages, which can do a lot with a little core and abstraction mechanisms (Scheme,Smalltalk,...). However, for maximum performance, you need a good compiler, which understands and optimizes your abstractions. In the case of Lisp, whoever writes the macros is also responsible for optimizing them. Unfortunately, this requires application programmers to be also good in writing compilers. C++ certainly has deficiencies, which cannot be fixed without completely breaking backwards compatibility. Rob Pike probably has them all included in the list you linked to. E.g. irregular syntax and header files. In my opinion D has mostly fixed those conceptual issues. Unfortunately, D is not mature [0] and development is slow. While D is certainly not the final word in language design, I consider it the only serious competitor to C++. [0] http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=20 http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=20
zem 14y ago
have you taken a look at D? it cleans up a lot of c++ warts, while not being any more kitchen-sinky.
batista 14y ago
>Many people are not looking for a "better C++", in the land of C++ it seems "better" means "more features", and some of us are not interested in more features, but in a better selection of fewer useful features. This is a knee jerk cliche reaction. D is much better designed than C++.

lucian1900 14y ago

Or perhaps Rust, which is both simpler than D and has more features in common with Go.

zem 14y ago
yes, i'm looking forward eagerly to rust, especially because it has algebraic datatypes and pattern matching. not sure how it will stack up to D speedwise, though.
- pcwalton 14y ago
  What in particular are you not sure about in terms of performance? With the exception of segmented stacks, Rust adheres to the zero-cost principle just as C++ does.
  - zem 14y ago
    not any expensive-looking features per se, simply that from looking at new languages, especially the ones with powerful features, speed is the hardest and usually the last thing to be achieved. i think ats is the only exception i've seen to that.