On 3/20/2016 3:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter was replaced by a D9000 computer years ago.

He was jeopardizing the mission.

On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 22:49:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/20/2016 3:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Walter was replaced by a D9000 computer years ago.
>
> He was jeopardizing the mission.

Or was he.

On 3/21/2016 9:51 AM, Bauss wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 22:49:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/20/2016 3:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Walter was replaced by a D9000 computer years ago.
>>
>> He was jeopardizing the mission.
>
> Or was he.

Too much Human Error.

On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 13:46:14 UTC, Anonymouse wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 13:23:55 UTC, Bauss wrote:
>> Looking at C++14 and the proposed features for C++17 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B17
>>
>> It looks a lot like C++ is trying to become similar to D.
>>
>> I believe that shows D's design pattern has been superior to C++'s from the start and there's no way C++ will ever be able to implement the same features of D in the same smooth and "user-friendly" behavior.
>>
>> What's your opinion?
>
> A much more common take on it is "why use D at all now that C++ is getting similar features", ignoring convenience.
>
> (I don't subscribe to it.)

Just that awesome new features are planned, doesn't mean they get implemented. On of mine, and i think also of many other cpp programmsters, highly anticipated features are C++ Modules. We are waiting years already to get to a usable solution ... yet nothing has integrated into the cpp standard :3

D on the other hand has all those awesome features, and D has them now. Sometimes it's a little rough on the edges, but in general it's really great *.* I hope D will start to grow faster. And seeing it currently at Tiobe index rank 20 makes me hope that it will be way more widespread in future.

<3 D ftw xD