Sorry, but it's true.
Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready to go.

But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).

On 12 December 2011 18:21, Bane <branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types and
> all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready to go.
>
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).

Bigger == Better.   :o)


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 12/12/2011 20:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Bigger == Better.   :o)

Biggest rock is best rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_APoSfCYwU

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

Am 12.12.2011, 19:21 Uhr, schrieb Bane <branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com>:

> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready to go.
>
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).

We know :)

On 12 December 2011 20:53, Robert Clipsham <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 20:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Bigger == Better.   :o)
>
>
> Biggest rock is best rock.
>

That's a whole lotta rox.



-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Trass3r Wrote:

> Am 12.12.2011, 19:21 Uhr, schrieb Bane <branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Sorry, but it's true.
> > Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> > and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> > to go.
> >
> > But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).
> 
> We know :)

Well, it is a nice to reinspect ones own decision after some time and confirm it was and is totally correct.

> Well, it is a nice to reinspect ones own decision after some time and confirm it was and is totally correct.

To do that just try going back to C++ ;)

Trass3r Wrote:

> > Well, it is a nice to reinspect ones own decision after some time and confirm it was and is totally correct.
> 
> To do that just try going back to C++ ;)

Just did.

Things lacking:
 - library
 - easy to use maps and arrays

Things that should lack:
 - bloody header files and forward declarations
 - preprocessor perversions
 - cryptic signs like <> :: ->

Things that are easier or more fun:
 - good compiler support
 - easy linking with C code
 - RAII tinkering & smaller memory footprint (GC just kills all the fun :(

Le 12/12/2011 19:21, Bane a écrit :
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> to go.
> 
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).

Yup :)

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:21:23 +0100, Bane wrote:

> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> to go.
> 
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and lose some weight from executables :).

You have got to be kidding me. D is above this ass kicking you speak. D waits for his opponent to turn around, hands them a sword, then punches them directly in the face.