View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 16, 2008
comparison of D2 and C++0x
Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
features?
March 16, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Denton Cockburn wrote:
> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
> features?


I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.
March 16, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Denton Cockburn wrote:
> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
> features?

What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 
2009 and implementations will follow long after that. So comparisons of 
an implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with 
no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time.

Also, a comparison of features may not accurately represent the benefits 
of D over C++0x in that they each may implement a given feature but in 
the case of D fewer design compromises are necessary as it doesn't have 
the legacy cruft of C++. Any comparison would have to be both 
qualitative and quantitative to be fair, and even then many people will 
ignore such qualitative (subjective) comparisons. :-)
March 16, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Brian Hay wrote:
> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
>> features?
> 
> What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 
> 2009 and implementations will follow long after that. 

It's relevant for people trying to decide if it's worth their while long 
term to change languages.

> So comparisons of 
> an implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with 
> no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time.

I think you can already get versions of g++ with preliminary 
implementations of some of the C++0x features (concepts was one, I 
think).  So while the big commercial players may drag their feet for 
years, you may be able to get most or at least many C++0x features a lot 
sooner.  Of course you won't have much choice in compiler, and it will 
probably be beta quality and subject to breaking changes, but isn't that 
what you'll face if you use D?  Except with C++0x you'll have near 100% 
assurance that the rest of the world will be joining you eventually.


> Also, a comparison of features may not accurately represent the benefits 
> of D over C++0x in that they each may implement a given feature but in 
> the case of D fewer design compromises are necessary as it doesn't have 
> the legacy cruft of C++. Any comparison would have to be both 
> qualitative and quantitative to be fair, and even then many people will 
> ignore such qualitative (subjective) comparisons. :-)

But some won't and will read it with interest.

I think a detailed feature comparison would be great.  It would help me 
find out more about what C++0x will and wont have in an easy way, by 
relating it to things I already know about D.  Also it would hopefully 
give me fodder to use on C++ folks who say they're just going to wait 
for C++0x.  I'll be able to say "ah, but even when it finally debuts, 
C++0x wont have ______".


--bb
March 16, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Walter Bright wrote:
> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
>> features?
> 
> 
> I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.

Thanks, I needed something amusing to start my day :)
March 16, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Brian Hay, el 16 de marzo a las 16:29 me escribiste:
> Denton Cockburn wrote:
> >Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
> >features?
> 
> What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 2009 and implementations will follow long after that. So comparisons of an 
> implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time.

There is already experimental support for some C++0x features in GCC 4.3,
so I don't know if it's gonna be years.

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/cxx0x_status.html

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aprendan de la primavera, que antecede al verano, precede al inverno y
no lo anda diciendo por ahí.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. Llanos de Luzuriaga, 1914.
March 19, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:16:43 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
>> features?
> 
> 
> I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.


Maybe do it as a wiki page, then someone else can modify it as both
languages change.
March 23, 2008
Re: comparison of D2 and C++0x
Walter Bright wrote:
> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
>> features?
> 
> 
> I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.

Maybe.  It looks like garbage collection is no longer being 
considered.  (Or they're using a totally different name to 
talk about it.)
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home