On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:28 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> > D is not c++-compatible anyway.
> D is ABI- and mangling-compatible with C++.
but we were talking about syntactic compatibility.

> Well what can I say? I'm glad you're not making the decisions.
i HATE c++. i want it to DIE, to disappear completely, with all the code written in it. so yes, it's good to D that i can't freely mess with mainline codebase. 'cause the first thing i'll do with it is destroying any traces of c++ interop. the world will be a better place without c++.

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 01:39:00 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:28 -0700
> Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > D is not c++-compatible anyway.
>> D is ABI- and mangling-compatible with C++.
> but we were talking about syntactic compatibility.
>
>> Well what can I say? I'm glad you're not making the decisions.
> i HATE c++. i want it to DIE, to disappear completely, with all the
> code written in it. so yes, it's good to D that i can't freely mess
> with mainline codebase. 'cause the first thing i'll do with it is
> destroying any traces of c++ interop. the world will be a better place
> without c++.

If you hate C++, you shouldn't have too much trouble to
understand that offering a way out for people using C++ is key.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:38:51AM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:28 -0700
> Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > D is not c++-compatible anyway.
> > D is ABI- and mangling-compatible with C++.
> but we were talking about syntactic compatibility.
> 
> > Well what can I say? I'm glad you're not making the decisions.
> i HATE c++. i want it to DIE, to disappear completely, with all the code written in it. so yes, it's good to D that i can't freely mess with mainline codebase. 'cause the first thing i'll do with it is destroying any traces of c++ interop. the world will be a better place without c++.

For a moment, I read that as you'll destroy any traces of C++, so the first thing that would go is the DMD source code. :-P


T

-- 
Shin: (n.) A device for finding furniture in the dark.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:16:27 -0700
"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> For a moment, I read that as you'll destroy any traces of C++, so the first thing that would go is the DMD source code. :-P
but we have magicport! well, almost... i'll postpone c++ destruction until magicport will be complete and working. ;-)

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:45:31 +0000
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> If you hate C++, you shouldn't have too much trouble to understand that offering a way out for people using C++ is key.
but there is! D is perfectly able to replace c++.

ah, i know, there is alot of legacy c++ code and people can't just rewrite it in D. so... so bad for that people then.

The lack of clear direction or communication thereof.  A continual adding of new stuff to try and appease the theoretical masses who will certainly come flocking to D if implemented, and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.  And inconsistency in how things work in the language.  Oh, and function attributes.  I'm sure someone likes them, but I'm drowning in pure system const immutable @nogc @illegitemate @wtf hell.

On 9/23/14, 7:29 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> The lack of clear direction or communication thereof.

* C++ compatibility
* Everything GC-related

Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.


Andrei

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 15:47:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/23/14, 7:29 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> The lack of clear direction or communication thereof.
>
> * C++ compatibility
> * Everything GC-related
>
> Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.

Well yeah, but that's just the current clear direction.  Who knows what it will be next week.

On 9/23/14, 9:06 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 15:47:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 9/23/14, 7:29 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> The lack of clear direction or communication thereof.
>>
>> * C++ compatibility
>> * Everything GC-related
>>
>> Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are
>> more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.
>
> Well yeah, but that's just the current clear direction.  Who knows what
> it will be next week.

It's been this for a good while, and it will probably be until done. -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 16:19:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/23/14, 9:06 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 15:47:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 9/23/14, 7:29 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> The lack of clear direction or communication thereof.
>>>
>>> * C++ compatibility
>>>
>>> Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are
>>> more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.
>>
>> Well yeah, but that's just the current clear direction.  Who knows what
>> it will be next week.
>
> It's been this for a good while, and it will probably be until done. -- Andrei

Here at work I'm toying with C++ compatibility right now: If it's viable, I would like to use D instead of C++ for a cloud tool that must link with C++ computer vision libraries...

Right now it sounds promising, so this feature could really be very interesting, not only to facilitate the integration with existing in-house codebase, but also for brand new projects.

I'm starting to think that there will be a lot of buzz and fuss about D as soon as good bindings to popular C++ libs will appear in the wild...

---
/Paolo