On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 22:02:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
So whenever D is a viable option, I always go for it because I find it to be vastly superior, even to C++11 (which is merely "slightly less crappy than old C++", IMO). And then when I *have* to use C++, I do so while wishing I was doing it in D.
I remember trying to read and learn C++ years and years ago. Got a headache just trying to read & understand it (2005ish). It felt like it wasn't consistent with C, it was ugly, friend functions never quite made sense, the default 'streams' library should have been written differently (It was originally an example class correct?)
Let's see what else. Headers, document twice, virtual has to be explicitly declared so inheritance is more limited. Constructors had to be the same name as the class, just a bunch of things that didn't quite seem like they fit right.
Reading/learning how the STL works they based everything off pointers (which makes some sense) but rather than make a new type and work on that they tried to make that backwards compatible with C, so to use iterators you simulate a pointer.
I can understand it's limitations on systems back when memory and drive space was scarce, but we're way past that now.
"Polish a turd, it's still a turd!" -- Peanut
