j anderson wrote:

> "David Rasmussen" <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:bglsug$1tel$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Charles Sanders wrote:
>>
>>>>Ada is a beautiful language :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Eww gross!
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>/David
>>
> 
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 

I know. I would like to know what his eye beholds.

/David

"David Rasmussen" <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote in message news:bgoc16$18tj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> j anderson wrote:
>
> > "David Rasmussen" <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote in message news:bglsug$1tel$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >>Charles Sanders wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Ada is a beautiful language :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Eww gross!
> >>
> >>Why?
> >>
> >>/David
> >>
> >
> >
> > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
>
> I know. I would like to know what his eye beholds.
>
> /David
>

I'll bite (even though I'm not Sanders).

These ada verse C++ *discussions* seem to appear regularly on this newsgroup.  IMHO it's whatever bakes the cake.  You send a message to a opengl group asking about a comparison between directX, and your sure to get a big discussion on how opengl is better. You send that to a directX group and you get how directX does so much more then openGL.

D was targeted at C/C++ users, and therefore it uses heaps of C/C++ syntax. On the other hand I guess most people using D are looking for a better C++. Therefore, I *think* most of the people using D are pro C++ style in general.  Now I'm sure to get a large amount of *not me* replies, from people who what to make D more like their favorite language.  That's not to say that D has been influenced by many other languages other then C/C++.

PS - Sorry for starting the obvious, and this is in no way meant to be an attack.