Jonathan M Davis wrote: > 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, > and I suspect that given the current issues with the GC, if you were > working on a AAA game, then you'd probably want the folks doing it to be > good C/C++ programmers so that they would know how to do what needed doing > when they can't use the GC or most of the standard libraries. For projects > where performance isn't quite as critical, then D stands a much better > chance of working. It _is_ easier to learn and has some definite > advantages over C++. >
Any programmer should be able to learn any language on the job. This doesn't make sense for small projects, but for larger projects the overhead can be small enough to warrant hiring competent programmers without any knowledge of the language. D is familiar enough for C++/C#/Java programmers to pick it up quickly. Especially for C++ programmers, given a sufficiently large timescale, it is not unthinkable that all time spent learning is recuperated by the productivity and scalability gains. I just cannot image a good C++ programmer having difficulty picking up D quickly.
