"Josh Simmons" <simmons...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2925.1316249875.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > 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.
See Nick, I'm not the only one thinking it.
