On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 20:21:55 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 18:57:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 4/23/13 2:42 PM, eles wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 14:26:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> I was mainly referring to the fact that C++ succeeded in spite of having initially an incomplete specification. Nowadays the expectations are much higher.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> As long as you keep changing the language, no specification will ever be complete.
>
> C++ will long advance. D must be out and living before C++14. Then, it will be too late. My view.

I don't see on what C++14 will really change the current state of C++? Changes aren't import for every day developments, C++14, won't import fast build, safe language specifications (removal of multiple inheritance, no removal of error prone syntaxes, specified initialization values, mandatory override keyword, ...),...

D don't have to compete C++, let D maturate.

If you are hurry to see D in the industry maybe you can contribute on tools, libraries,...

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 07:02:39 Mehrdad wrote:
> Well, I think the float behavior is correct and the string example is broken, but that wasn't my point anyway.
> 
> The point was that it's still broken.

According to TDPL (section 7.1.5.2, p. 258 - 259), == on structs should be equivalent to using == on each of the struct's members:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3789

Doing anything else would be inconsistent, and the way that it is has definitely been causing problems and forces people to overload opEquals way more often than strictly speaking should be necessary.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 22:17:33 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 14:25:21 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 19:58:14 UTC, Tourist wrote:

Sorry, I was rude here and I apologize. Finally, D is (at least) a wonderful place to discuss and test new ideas and, while I would like it to take off faster, a too early rush won't make any good.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 20:21:55 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 18:57:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 4/23/13 2:42 PM, eles wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 14:26:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> I was mainly referring to the fact that C++ succeeded in spite of having initially an incomplete specification. Nowadays the expectations are much higher.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> As long as you keep changing the language, no specification will ever be complete.
>
> C++ will long advance. D must be out and living before C++14. Then, it will be too late. My view.

I also think when modules are integrated into the C++ standard, for most developers, there won't be any case left for D. Even though D technically is superior in almost every way, conservatism is strong enough.

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 09:24:13 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
> I also think when modules are integrated into the C++ standard, for most developers, there won't be any case left for D. Even though D technically is superior in almost every way, conservatism is strong enough.

C++ will never be sufficiently changed to leave no chance for other native languages. It is doomed because of mandatory backwards compatibility with huge legacy package. Main issues of C++ are not lack of advanced features but inconvenient design of basic features.

Well, D is trying to have its own share of those issues too :P

Am 28.04.2013 12:03, schrieb Dicebot:
> On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 09:24:13 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>> I also think when modules are integrated into the C++ standard, for
>> most developers, there won't be any case left for D. Even though D
>> technically is superior in almost every way, conservatism is strong
>> enough.
>
> C++ will never be sufficiently changed to leave no chance for other
> native languages. It is doomed because of mandatory backwards
> compatibility with huge legacy package. Main issues of C++ are not lack
> of advanced features but inconvenient design of basic features.
>
> Well, D is trying to have its own share of those issues too :P

True, but only now the major OS vendors are switching from C to C++ as their main systems programming language.

How long will take until they replace it with something else?

--
Paulo

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 12:01:58 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> True, but only now the major OS vendors are switching from C to C++ as their main systems programming language.

Curious, which ones are you referring to?

Windows uses C for the kernel, for many reasons, one of which is that C (unlike C++) discourages storing large objects on the stack.

Linux uses C for the kernel too, mainly because Walter hates C++ (and C++ programmers).

Which vendors have switched to C++ for systems programming?

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 23:11:30 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 12:01:58 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
> Which vendors have switched to C++ for systems programming?

Paolo probably had MS in mind which didn't release WinRT for C.

On Monday, 29 April 2013 at 04:19:06 UTC, Oleg Kuporosov wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 23:11:30 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 12:01:58 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>
>> Which vendors have switched to C++ for systems programming?
>
> Paolo probably had MS in mind which didn't release WinRT for C.

Ah ok... but that's not really "systems programming", it's pretty high-level.

On 2013-04-29 01:11, Mehrdad wrote:

> Curious, which ones are you referring to?
>
> Windows uses C for the kernel, for many reasons, one of which is that C
> (unlike C++) discourages storing large objects on the stack.
>
> Linux uses C for the kernel too, mainly because Walter hates C++ (and
> C++ programmers).
>
> Which vendors have switched to C++ for systems programming?

The kernel in Mac OS X is written in a subset of C++.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg