On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 14:07:43 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 13:23:32 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 09:54:37 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
So, at the moment, I don't see how you can EASILY convince
people to use BetterC for C/C++ use cases, like programming
games, microcontrollers, etc.
*Extremely powerful meta programming that blows c++ meta
programming out of the water
*Clean readable syntax
*No header file nonsense
*Standard keyword for ASM if you really need the performance
boost.
*Compiler enforce memory safety.
-Alex
I know.
And D's builtin strings/arrays/slices/maps/etc and automatic
memory deallocation are part of what makes D a better
alternative to C++ too.
No. For many C++ users, tracing GC is absolutely not an option.
And, if it were, D's GC is not a shining example of a good GC.
It's not even precise, and I would bet that it never will be. If
I'm able to tolerate a GC, there are languages with much better
GCs than the D one, like Go and Java.
I work in a mostly C++ shop where exceptions are intolerable in
C++ code, and in many places we use CRTP to eliminate dispatch
overhead. DasBetterC would be usable here but it's too late given
the existing investment in C++. Obviously there's no CRTP in
DasBetterC without struct inheritance, but there are other
designs to address this issue.
Besides having more betterC libraries, I'd like to see some kind
of restricted approach to exception handling, like the ones being
investigated in
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0709r1.pdf. If you want a better C++, look at what people who have to use C++ use it for, and where the pain points are.
