On Wednesday, 24 September 2014 at 09:57:06 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:15:27 +0000
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:
Most of us cannot afford to be a "Technology X" developer.
Every project, every client is a complete new world.
yeah. and so there is *no* *reason* to stress c++ interop, heh.
'cause
"client dictates language" anyway. i like it.
I do understand your concerns and I once mentioned in a thread
that companies who use D should not dictate the way D evolves,
instead it should remain community driven. Say for example D were
used on web servers and a huge amount of effort was directed
towards turning D into a web server language, while other
important features/improvements were neglected, that'd be bad.
However, in the case of C++ I must say that it is important. One
of the reasons I opted for D was (and still is) its seamless
C-integration. It allowed me to use so much existing code in C,
libraries I would and could never have rewritten myself in D.
There are loads of C(++) libraries out there you might want to or
have to use for a particular project. When I started using D the
Unicode module lacked certain features I needed. I just used an
existing C library and could go on with the real program in D.
Hadn't this been possible, the project in D would have died right
then and there. Now D itself has the features I needed back then,
but the C library was essential to bridge the gap. I think a lot
of C++ programmers would do the same. Start a new project in D
resting assured they can still use their carefully built code
bases in C++. So I think interop with C++ is important. And don't
forget that the reality is that most people interested in (yet
reluctant about) D are C++ programmers, at least that's the
impression I get here.
