On 09/17/2011 10:57 AM, Josh Simmons wrote:
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.
Well, my pragmatic and simplistic definition of language quality is how
fast work is done using that particular language. And in my experience I
get hella lot of more work done in less time in D.
Yes C++ is crap, but so is D, they're both crappy in their own ways,
What matters is the amount of crap. And D wins that game.
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.
D has the advantage of hindsight. One is always more intelligent
afterwards, so assuming that one knows more than the ones before is
realistic. That is how progress works.
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.
Exploring crap is lost time. (and you stink afterwards, ftw!) If a
language forces you to explore it's crap well to save your legs from
being blown off, that is quite poor imho. You have to know what _works_.
