www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - comparison of D2 and C++0x

reply Denton Cockburn <diboss hotmail.com> writes:
Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
features?
Mar 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.
Mar 15 2008
next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.

Thanks, I needed something amusing to start my day :)
Mar 16 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Denton Cockburn <diboss hotmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:16:43 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.

Maybe do it as a wiki page, then someone else can modify it as both languages change.
Mar 18 2008
prev sibling parent Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

I was going to, but C++0x changes constantly.

Maybe. It looks like garbage collection is no longer being considered. (Or they're using a totally different name to talk about it.)
Mar 22 2008
prev sibling parent reply Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:
Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 2009 and implementations will follow long after that. So comparisons of an implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time. Also, a comparison of features may not accurately represent the benefits of D over C++0x in that they each may implement a given feature but in the case of D fewer design compromises are necessary as it doesn't have the legacy cruft of C++. Any comparison would have to be both qualitative and quantitative to be fair, and even then many people will ignore such qualitative (subjective) comparisons. :-)
Mar 15 2008
next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Brian Hay wrote:
 Denton Cockburn wrote:
 Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
 features?

What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 2009 and implementations will follow long after that.

It's relevant for people trying to decide if it's worth their while long term to change languages.
 So comparisons of 
 an implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with 
 no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time.

I think you can already get versions of g++ with preliminary implementations of some of the C++0x features (concepts was one, I think). So while the big commercial players may drag their feet for years, you may be able to get most or at least many C++0x features a lot sooner. Of course you won't have much choice in compiler, and it will probably be beta quality and subject to breaking changes, but isn't that what you'll face if you use D? Except with C++0x you'll have near 100% assurance that the rest of the world will be joining you eventually.
 Also, a comparison of features may not accurately represent the benefits 
 of D over C++0x in that they each may implement a given feature but in 
 the case of D fewer design compromises are necessary as it doesn't have 
 the legacy cruft of C++. Any comparison would have to be both 
 qualitative and quantitative to be fair, and even then many people will 
 ignore such qualitative (subjective) comparisons. :-)

But some won't and will read it with interest. I think a detailed feature comparison would be great. It would help me find out more about what C++0x will and wont have in an easy way, by relating it to things I already know about D. Also it would hopefully give me fodder to use on C++ folks who say they're just going to wait for C++0x. I'll be able to say "ah, but even when it finally debuts, C++0x wont have ______". --bb
Mar 16 2008
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Brian Hay, el 16 de marzo a las 16:29 me escribiste:
 Denton Cockburn wrote:
Has anyone thought to do a feature comparison of proposed D2 and C++Ox
features?

What's the point? As I understand it, C++0x won't come into effect until 2009 and implementations will follow long after that. So comparisons of an implemented and specified (albeit not yet stable) D2 and C++0x with no implementation for years are largely irrelevant at the present time.

There is already experimental support for some C++0x features in GCC 4.3, so I don't know if it's gonna be years. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/cxx0x_status.html -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aprendan de la primavera, que antecede al verano, precede al inverno y no lo anda diciendo por ahí. -- Ricardo Vaporeso. Llanos de Luzuriaga, 1914.
Mar 16 2008