Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on July 20, 2021 11:13 pm wrote:
> Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on July 20, 2021 12:00 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on July 20, 2021 10:14 am wrote:
> > > Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on July 20, 2021 6:24 am wrote:
> > > > gallier2 (gallier2.delete@this.gmx.de) on July 20, 2021 4:57 am wrote:
> > > > > Looks like a good candidate for D.
> > > > > https://tour.dlang.org/
> > > >
> > > > I like D, but this language don't have all the support for
> > > > me to try it, the big boys usually prefer to create
> > > > their own language instead of adopting one so we ended with many similar languages but incompatible.
> > >
> > > Isn't D GC-based, so unsuitable for kernel?
> >
> > No, the GC is optional and D can be used for an OS kernel without problems.
> >
> > Nevertheless, some parts of its standard library depend on the GC,
> > so those parts are no longer available when the GC is not used.
> >
> > I like D much more than any other C replacement, because it is obvious that it was designed by people
> > with experience in programming language implementation and it is uniformly better than C, unlike
> > other alternatives that succeed to include some worse features besides the better features.
> >
> > Most such attempts of creating new programming languages
> > include a few very useful and interesting new ideas
> > in those languages, but then they combine them with other
> > questionable programming language features, which have
> > been proven to be inferior many decades ago, but the authors
> > of those new programming languages do not seem to
> > have any knowledge about the old programming languages or research papers that have shown better ways.
>
> You can lead a donkey to the fountain of knowledge, but you can’t make him drink.
> The last major revision of Swift included the kitchen sink, including features that go against the
> ethos of the language. Because stupid programers want to use stupid features and you have to support
> everything to be successful. Don’t fight an ass, both of you will just end up unhappy.
>
> A Swift fanboy who did not get into this fight because all the alternatives are better than C++.
>
> And most of these languages are only different in a few wrappers around handling specific problems,
> like better strings or better threading or better error handling, etc. add a library and you
> can make them all look alike. Only C++ is too old and broken to fix, though they try. ;)

All alternatives are better than C++ as long as you don't stretch it close to the edge.
The edge of memory capacity, of speed, of access to non-common features of underlying OS... whatever.
But when you do, then alternatives suddenly look less good.
Of course, near the edge, "modern C++", with smart pointers, exceptions and overuse of RAII, does not look particularly good either.