Practically: check out the implementations of std.windows.registry.d, and the WinSTL reg_key_sequence<> and reg_value_sequence<> classes (ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/stlsoft-1.7.1.zip). They had the same author - me - and give a pretty good illustration of the respective powers of the two languages, and a fair and unbiased comparison of the effort and results of the implementation a non-trivial problem.

Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very* enthusiastic about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your having those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it, probably about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that it's easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.

Finally, you're posting on the wrong NG. This one's obsolete. Try news://news.digitalmars.com/digitalmars.D


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
    (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
Director, Synesis Software
    (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator
    (http://www.stlsoft.org)

-----------------------------------------------------



"Mike Jolley" <Mike_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cabkok$c63$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c246jl$301q$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Anon. says...
> >
> >Is there a read source of example code in D? Something a little more extensive that those that come with the compiler without being horribly complex. Just
some
> >worked examples of using the various new (relative to C) language features.
>
> I would like to see a horribly complex problem solved with the full treatment
in
> C++ and D side by side.  When I say nontrivial, I mean, I've seen the text-processing stuff and it's some nice syntax, but I could use perl for that.
>
> I need to see something big that would require design patterns in C++.  D seems to automatically solve some major problems, like header dependencies that would require specific techniques to handle when writing C++.  Good job.  but there are a lot of unexpected interactions among language features that have been found and the C++ standard has at least tried to address. I'm not giving up on C++ yet.  If D can do better than the examples given in "Modern C++ Design",
I'm
> listening.
>
>

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb99je$1ugm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very*
enthusiastic
> about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your
having
> those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it,
probably
> about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that
it's
> easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.

D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.

In article <cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.

I'm not sure that C++ *is* more powerful.  But discovering the techniques that really demonstrate this can take quite a while--it wasn't until maybe 1997 that people really started to explore the full potential of templates.  I'm still new enough with D that I find myself frustrated trying to do some things I take for granted in C++, but I think much of that will go away as I learn new techniques. Overall I think D has the potential to be more powerful than C++.

Sean

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:cbagp2$tg3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> >
> >D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC,
mixins,
> >nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.
>
> I'm not sure that C++ *is* more powerful.  But discovering the techniques
that
> really demonstrate this can take quite a while--it wasn't until maybe 1997
that
> people really started to explore the full potential of templates.  I'm
still new
> enough with D that I find myself frustrated trying to do some things I
take for
> granted in C++, but I think much of that will go away as I learn new
techniques.
> Overall I think D has the potential to be more powerful than C++.

I think you make a great point. Attempting to do a rote translation of C++ code into D is going to be frustrating; but once one gets used to thinking in D, doing a rote translation of D to C++ is going to be impractical.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb99je$1ugm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very*
> enthusiastic
> > about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your
> having
> > those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it,
> probably
> > about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that
> it's
> > easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.
>
> D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.

Haven't time to debate it at the mo; that'll have to wait until next month.

If you like, I can rephrase "has almost as much power as C++" to be "has _nearly_ as many places in the programming world that you can poke it".

As soon as their is a D implementation that is bug free, and usable  ( a complier must work 100% everytime), I will agree that D is more powerful than C++.

I dont mean to be rude, and know that I love D and hope it will succeed, but I think the window of oppurtunity for D is rapdily shutting.  Its been what over 3 years in development ?, and from my perspective its farther from 1.0 than it was 4 months ago.  Am I alone in thinking we need _one_ solid release, that won't be antiquated 3 months later ?  We ( by we I mean Walter :P ) could probably improve it , and add cool new features forever, and while I don't want to rush it, I'm afraid the clock is ticking.

Charlie

In article <cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb99je$1ugm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very*
>enthusiastic
>> about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your
>having
>> those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it,
>probably
>> about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that
>it's
>> easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.
>
>D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.
>
>

"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbatrq$1fu2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> As soon as their is a D implementation that is bug free, and usable  ( a complier must work 100% everytime), I will agree that D is more powerful
than
> C++.
>
> I dont mean to be rude, and know that I love D and hope it will succeed,
but I
> think the window of oppurtunity for D is rapdily shutting.  Its been what
over 3
> years in development ?, and from my perspective its farther from 1.0 than
it was
> 4 months ago.  Am I alone in thinking we need _one_ solid release, that
won't be
> antiquated 3 months later ?  We ( by we I mean Walter :P ) could probably improve it , and add cool new features forever, and while I don't want to
rush
> it, I'm afraid the clock is ticking.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree. What happened is it became clear that D needed a few more things in order to write the kind of code we need for it. My plan is to finish up the typeinfo changes. Thereafter it will be bug fixes and library work.

I don't care if D doesn't become the *rage*, I'll use D as long as Walter works on it.

However, something that could help it *alot* would be to add a standard GUI library into Phobos, hopefully cross-platform for Win32 and Linux/Gtk. People don't want to make command-line apps anymore, esp. not for Win32!

With respect, I see this as being rather naive. There is a lot of interest in D, and much of that stretches outside what's visible on this forum.

While I believe C++ has a long and happy (albeit hard) future ahead of it, C++ is less and less accessible to people who are not already skilled in it. The other "modern" languages/technologies -which I assume you are alluding to - such as .NET and Java are not now, and never will, represent a viable alternative to C++ for the majority of its areas of strength. We will continue to have the choice of doing bulk of non-GUI, non Web-service work done in C or, for the brave/skilled/motivated, C++. This is where D comes in. D is *far* more accessible than C++, has relatively few flaws in comparison to the dumbed-down languages/technologies of Java and .NET, and will be nearly (IMO) as powerful/general-purpose as D.

Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position. I think that chance is at least 20%, and probably around 40% or more. In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.

However, I agree that we need to get 1.0 happening, and I hope it can happen within the next 2-3 months. (I intend to get stuck into DTL in July in a big way, with a hope of DTL 1.0 shipping with D 1.0).

What would be good would be if there were several non-trivial samples included in the 1.0 distribution. Any takers?? I'll commit to making reggrep robust and friendly if others will also contribute some samples.

We also need to get a book on D, but's that's another story ... ;)


"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbatrq$1fu2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> As soon as their is a D implementation that is bug free, and usable  ( a complier must work 100% everytime), I will agree that D is more powerful than C++.
>
> I dont mean to be rude, and know that I love D and hope it will succeed, but I think the window of oppurtunity for D is rapdily shutting.  Its been what over
3
> years in development ?, and from my perspective its farther from 1.0 than it
was
> 4 months ago.  Am I alone in thinking we need _one_ solid release, that won't
be
> antiquated 3 months later ?  We ( by we I mean Walter :P ) could probably improve it , and add cool new features forever, and while I don't want to rush it, I'm afraid the clock is ticking.
>
> Charlie
>
> In article <cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> >
> >
> >"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb99je$1ugm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very*
> >enthusiastic
> >> about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your
> >having
> >> those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it,
> >probably
> >> about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that
> >it's
> >> easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.
> >
> >D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.
> >
> >
>
>

"Matthew" wrote
> What would be good would be if there were several non-trivial samples
included in
> the 1.0 distribution. Any takers??

Uhhh ... there's a boat load of samples over at dsource.org, not to mention all the projects over there. I can't imagine you consider the latter to be trivial <g>