dsimcha wrote:
Sometimes I feel like there should be a law similar to Greenspun's Law for
language design:
Any sufficiently long-lived language that promises to be "simpler" than C++ and
D
will grow to contain an ad-hoc, bug-ridden, informally specified, slow
implementation of half of C++ and D.
The dogged inventiveness of the C++ community never ceases to amaze me.
Someone always finds a way to make a library to support some paradigm.
Look at all the things Boost does.
The problem, though, is the result is often just so strange I'd rather
do without. Sometimes, you just need to improve the language to support
things better.
