Java is cleaner than C++. And there is no perfect OOP language for big applications, so you'll have to keep using Java or C# (which is better designed IMO)
>>6
D doesn't have an efficient compiler I can install on my machine, and it's not even open-source which means it's still as closed as Java...
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 5:14
>>8
Same reason why I haven't bothered with D. Which is a fucking pity because it looked good.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 8:14
>>9
Yeah. The author really messed up there. No one these days is going to give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about a language that doesn't have an open implementation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 8:59 (sage)
>>10
please to learn english.
"doesn't have an efficient compiler" is more important part of >>8 than "not even open-source".
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 10:41
>>11
Lots of languages lack an efficient compiler (whatever that even means - perhaps you mean optimal), what's your point?
>>12
my point is that without an efficient and open-source compiler, people will know you're serious about your product. Efficient: fast and reliable code, open-source: anyone can see what's really inside.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 17:48
I hear they are considering implementing a D parser in GCC. Free C-level optimizations for everyone.
Or not. I'm happy with interpreted languages.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-21 20:22
Whatever it is, just make D popular. I liked the brief of it, so if it gets popular (and useful) I'll consider it.
I don't really like D. It seems like they took C and added a bunch of syntax candy without thought for elegance or parsing simplicity. But I haven't looked that hard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-22 22:47
>>17
One might consider D to be what C++ *should have* been
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-25 14:40
D was designed to be easily parsed, dunno what you mean "without thought for elegance or parsing simplicity".
I also find it more elegant than java, and deffo less ugly than C++