On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 20:25:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 19:33:04 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
That's not actually true. Many C++ programmer express a dislike
for how the the syntax has developed over time, all the weird
corner-cases, the obfuscated meta programming mechanisms and
unpredictable implicitness when trying to do more advanced
typing. Just getting the right constructor to fire can be a
challenge.
The general C++ semantics are good enough, but the language has
to many weird aspects to it that is "beyond repair" and that
makes C++ programming time consuming.
The problem is that "C++ programmers" is not a random sample.
It's a group that was willing to push through the pain of old C++
and read books by Scott Meyers and learn template
metaprogramming. The willingness to endure that torture weeded
out all but the very best matches. Now there are improvements
with C++11, C++14, and C++17, so *that group* getting a *much
improved language* has no incentive to switch. Everyone else is
already using another language.
"With C++xx, there's little benefit to switching" is a very
common sentiment among current C++ programmers. And it's probably
true. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, it's hard to see
someone choosing to learn C++ rather than D. Making a push for
those developers will be more productive.
