Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).

Tony

Tony wrote:
> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).
> 
> Tony 

Well, someone has to give the obvious answer:

42


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Tony wrote:
> > Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).
> > 
> > Tony
> 
> Well, someone has to give the obvious answer:
> 
> 42
> 
> 
> Andrei

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

"Tony" <tonytech08@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gegh9e$1q4i$1@digitalmars.com...
> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).
>
> Tony

I've considered C++ a dinosaur for years. For many obvious reasons. But not D. I consider D to be the one modern language with the least tendancy towards stupid (but popular) design decisions.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I've considered C++ a dinosaur for years. For many obvious reasons. But not D. I consider D to be the one modern language with the least tendancy towards stupid (but popular) design decisions. 


Yeah, but you guys give me grief for making unpopular decisions <g>.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> 
> Yeah, but you guys give me grief for making unpopular decisions <g>.


"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw.


-=mike=-

"Walter Bright" wrote
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I've considered C++ a dinosaur for years. For many obvious reasons. But not D. I consider D to be the one modern language with the least tendancy towards stupid (but popular) design decisions.
>
>
> Yeah, but you guys give me grief for making unpopular decisions <g>.

You are reasonable for the most part ;)  You have made a lot of popular decisions too.

And some of your unpopular ones are good too.

-Steve

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> And some of your unpopular ones are good too.

The decision to move forward with the immutable/const system was unpopular, but I am strongly convinced that design will be vindicated. Even C#'s creators are talking about adopting its features <g>.

Tony wrote:
> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).
> 
> Tony 
> 
> 

Technically, I'd consider C++ to be undead. Old, ugly, its zombie rotting flesh never seems to die. It lives by eating the brains of C programmers.

~ Clay

"Clay Smith" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gej5nr$13jd$1@digitalmars.com...
> Tony wrote:
>> Someone has to ask the obvious question! (The question is in the subject of this post).
>>
>> Tony
>
> Technically, I'd consider C++ to be undead. Old, ugly, its zombie rotting flesh never seems to die. It lives by eating the brains of C programmers.
>
> ~ Clay

Funny you mention that, the analogies I normally think of for C++ are either a 120+ year-old on life support or, as you said, the living dead. It's long past it's time, but people just won't let it finally rest (probably because, aside from D, there's no modern language that's a suitable replacement for C++ in *all* of C++'s use-cases. C# and Java, for instance, are only partial replacements. They can handle many of C++'s uses, but not all.)