https://lsferreira.net/posts/zet-1-classes-betterc-d/

by Luís Ferreira

It's currently on the front page of Hacker News:

https://news.ycombinator.com/

And then there are issues such as https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21416 which killed off any chance of me using them internally.

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 05:37:42 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> And then there are issues such as https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21416 which killed off any chance of me using them internally.

...and the implementation, as presented, falls apart due to not forwarding arguments correctly. Not insurmountable, of course, although `forward` really should be an intrinsic and not a library function.

And due to looking for a `__dtor` instead of `__xdtor`. And due to the fact that ya can't use the proposed `destroy` function with a reference to base class and still call the destructor of derived class correctly, let alone infer attributes correctly. And due to it trusting the `pureFree` when it shouldn't.

Can't see anything news-worthy here. This has been possible for ages, and is still limited to wazoo by classes being married to druntime, pessimized by lack of proper forwarding in the language, and can't be @safe.

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 04:58:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Classes in D with betterC

I had a hope it's about changes in language/runtime...

as much as i love betterC

i think if we see classes in betterC, then we should have them require the *

otherwise it's repeating the same mistakes as D

betterC already is niche on its own, so let's do the move?

If -betterC get classes, can we please make them require to have the same syntax as structs/classes in C++

    MyClass* class = alloc!MyClass;


otherwise i don't think the name "betterC" should remain.. that would be repeating same D's mistake (in my opinion)