On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 11:44:31 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 13 November 2014 20:38, via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 10:24:44 UTC, Marc Schütz
wrote:
D need to appropriate what C++ has and do it better. Basically
it means
integrating GC pointers with unique_ptr and shared_ptr.
If D is going to be stuck on what it has and "fix" it with
addig crutches it
will go nowhere, and C++ will start to look like a better
option…
I don't follow how you associate that opinion with
implementation of
scope. I think it's practical and important, and the point is
the
opposite of what you say from my perspective.
scope is the best approach I've heard to address these
differences in
allocation patterns without asserting any particular policy on
the
user. Escape analysis is the only solution I know to safely
allow
pointers to be passed around without having to worry about how
they
were allocated.
By contrast, I have no idea what you're suggesting, or how it's
not a
'crutch'... but if it's anything to do with C++, I'm dubious,
and
kinda frightened.
Incidentally, I've recently started a new C++ job, first C++
I've
written in some years... (after ~18 years, 12 professionally,
full-time C/C++)
After having adapted to D and distancing from C++, trying to go
back
is like some form of inhuman torture!
I really don't remember it being as bad as it is... the time
away has
given me new perspective on how terrible C++ is, and I can say
with
confidence, there is NOTHING C++ could do to make itself a
'better
option' at this point.
Judged on common ground, there is no competition. It's only
'the devil
you know' case that I think can possibly make an argument for
C++.
C++14 is quite nice and C++17 will be even better.
Then there is the advantage it is available in all OS vendors
SDKs, with very nice tooling.
However, the hard reality in most corporations is that code bases
will be pre-C++98 with its own set of guidelines, if any.
--
Paulo
