On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: > > Are you seriously trying say that that implies each successive one is > inherently no better than the previous? If so, then that's just patently > absurd. If not, then what in the world *is* your point? Just to troll? >
No I believe the implication is that absolute quality is so absurdly impossible to define that it's somewhat irrelevant to even contemplate it. And it's certainly overly simplistic to consider it without putting it in the context of a given problem. Yes C++ is crap, but so is D, they're both crappy in their own ways, to suggest otherwise is to assume that you're so much more intelligent than all that have come before you that you've managed to create a perfect product when all else have failed. To make analogy, it's like saying that OOP is inherently better than any paradigm before it. Ultimately though the issue is that C++'s crap is well explored and known, D's crap is significantly less so. Whether this is an issue for you depends entirely on your context.
