On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 08:42:43 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 at 19:25:43 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 09:18:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Because D is a re-engineering of C++
I thought it was re-engineering of C
This opinion seems quite common in the D community, but I
frankly don't see it. If you are referring to the D subset
defined by the BetterC switch, well, maybe then I would agree.
But not for D in general.
At first this language was called Mars and it was simple. It was
one man`s project. Walter fixed the flaws he saw in C but made
sure that porting C to Mars was easy - copied code either
compiled or threw an error.
Then Andrei came and he put all that metaprogramming, generics,
introspection and more on top of the base that Walter built.
I dont think you can call D as re engineering of C++ when it was
one person project. But historical accuracy is not why I raised
that question. I remember there was a post by a C++ programmer
that came to this mailing list saying that a year ago he tried D
because he was told that its similar to C++ but without all the
cruft or something like that. I dont remember exactly. Because D
does not behave like C++ that programmer didnt like the language.
One year later he tried D again but this time he came to D from
the point of it being like C but with its flaws fixed and stuff
added to that core. Then he liked the language. The language
didnt change but his enjoyment changed when he changed his
expectations.
