"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:j51h52$2h0e$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 01:53:07 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> People who are *good* at C++ are hard to find, and even harder to
>>> cultivate.
>>> And that's never going to change. It's a fundamental limitation of
>>> the
>>> langauge (at least until the Vulcans finally introduce themselves to
>>> us).
>>> But D's a lot easier for people to become good at.
>>
>> It's a _lot_ easier to find good C++ programmers than good D
>> programmers,
>
> Oh, definitely. But what I meant was that good D programmers can be
> cultivated. People can learn to be good at D. And while the same might
> *technically* be true of C++, the curve is so steep that it may as well
> be "what's out there is what's out there". It's, more or less, a
> non-renewable resource.
It's not nearly as "steep" as it used to be, for C++, the tools, the
techniques, the documentation, the users have matured and one need not
struggle through everything on one's own anymore while learning it, but
rather just go look up or ask for the answer, and it is still improving.
Sure, if one exploits every "stupid template trick" and similarly with
the other language features, then you will have "steep", but it is quite
tractable these days if one isn't overzealous and able to separate all
the jabber about "metaprogramming" and the like from the meat of the
language. It will always have its warts, but D has many of the same ones.
> I realize I've said this other times in the past, but I find that the
> compiler bugs in DMD are much less severe than the language
> deficiencies of a fully-bug-free C++ implementation.
>
That's an interesting, if not odd, statement considering that C++ are
more alike than they are different.
> Plus there's the idea of investing in the future to keep in mind: It's
> like the old quote: "I may be fat, but you're stupid. I can excersise
> and diet, but stupid will always be stupid."
The truth of the matter is, though, that she won't exercise to any
significant degree and has been on a diet her whole life and her weight
has continually increased. On top of that, the fact that one can study,
research and learn escapes the fat dumb blonde bimbo because she indeed
is stupid, and that's why her "dieting" causes her to gain weight instead
of lose it.
> D may have some bugs, but investing the effort to deal with them will
> lead to further improvements. Dealing with C++'s problems, OTOH, will
> hardly do a damn thing.
Again, I find that a curious statement for reason noted. The language
names even fit together: C/C++/D. There is no denying that they are all
related. Just look at those noses! C'mon!
> Sure, a few things can be mitigated somewhat, such as the
> C++0x^H^H1x^H^H2x^H^H3x improvents. But in general, investing the
> effort to deal with C++'s shortcomings won't lead to significant
> improvements - it *can't* because it's constrained by its existing
> legacy design (not that that won't eventually happen to D, too, but D
> is one generation past C++).
One generation away, but still the same family. So what?
> Ie., D may be buggy, but C++ is crappy. Bugs can be fixed, but crappy
> will always be crappy.
All adolescents conflict with their parents and say things like that.
When D grows up, the D++ or E kids will be maligning D and then D will
remember back how it was just the same when it was just a youngster.
>>
>> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of
>> C++
>> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement
>> on the
>> matter.
>
> FWIW, I had been a huge fan of C++ for many years and used it
> extensively ('course, that was quite awhile ago now...). And I *do*
> think it was a great language back in it's time. I just think that time
> is long since past.
I think C++ is now coming into it's own and it sucked in the past much
more. D is now in it's sucky period IMO, and may have it's day in the
future. Time will tell.
> When I say "C++ is crappy", I mean "within today's context, and moving
> forward from here".
Tomorrow is surely something else, probably not D, IMO, but today is all
C++.
> I'm certainly aware of all that, and I do understand. But the question
> here wasn't "Do you think OTHER people feel language X is suitable for
> serious work?" It was "Do YOU think language X is suitable for serious
> work?" I don't doubt other people would disagree with me (especially
> people who haven't used D, and even probably some who have), but my own
> answer is "Yes, I think D is suitable for such projects, and in such a
> situation, yes, I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is."
Ha! I inadvertently just answered those questions. Well, I guess you know
what I think now (not that I was going to hide it).
