On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:57:59 +0200 "PauloPinto" <pj...@progtools.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 21:25:41 UTC, Walter Bright > wrote: > > On 9/9/2013 11:35 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > >> C++11 has revitalized C++ in ways that are only just showing > >> themselves. > > > > That's true. > > > >> This is a threat to D gaining traction. > > > > I'm less sure about that. I think it presents an opportunity > > for us. Driving the C++ resurgence is: > > > > 1. demand for high performance computing > > > > 2. turning back towards native languages > > > > 3. recognition of the value of functional-style programming > > techniques > > > > 4. recognition of the value of safety, encapsulation, etc. > > Your 1-4 points are already covered by existing languages for > traditional line of business applications, specially given the > fact that even current VM based languages have native compilers > available. > > Putted another way, how well do the 1 - 4 bullet points stand > against Java/C#/Scala/Clojure native compilers ? > Points #1 and #2 (performance computing and the draw towards native languages) are *both* about these two things: A. Lack of the VM "middleman" sucking up resources. B. Low-level capabilities. The native compilers for VM languages (With the possible exception of C#) can only address point "A" at best. And even C# is a bit awkward at point "B". Giving a VM language a native compiler is only going half-way. The language itself is geared towards, and therefore limited by, the need to be runnable in a VM. That places inherent limitations on the potential benefits of native compilation. So while it's technically native-compiled, it's just bolted-on as an afterthought. Just because I add a turbocharger to a sedan doesn't mean it's comparable to a McLaren or a Bugatti.
