Comparison of Sepples and D

D:

no more preprocessor
no more headers
faster compilation
order of declaration is not important, no need to predeclare
a name conflict when importing modules with the same identifier trigger an error. Impossible to use the wrong symbol unknowingly.
no more implicit conversion of arrays to pointers
++pre and post-increment++ have been fixed
ranges are simpler to implement than iterators
the D STL is actually readable
move and copy semantics radically simplified
array slices are supported at the langage levels (pointer carrying their length), more bounds-checking ensues
C++ code is unittested at great pains : unit tests have been made a builtin
documentation comments are builtin to avoid the need for an external tool that inevitably no-one uses
D has a package manager, C++ has none that is popular in its community
stack variables / members are initialized by default. This fact alone would have saved me months of debugging C++ code
lexing stage separated from parsing stage separated from semantics
easier and more powerful templates that allow the average programmer to create meta-programs routinely
productivity generally increased by the GC
saner operator overloading

Sepples:

C++ seems a bit more thorough and specified
C++ story for resources is better

easier and more powerful templates
easier
more powerful

So which is it, dipshit? They can't be both easier and more powerful. In fact, they can't be more powerful, because Sepples templates are already Turing-complete. So I presume you meant to write just "easier". Why'd you throw in the "and more powerful" part then? To add weight to your words in the hope that everyone will believe your bullshit? Fucking knucklehead.

C:
void.h
can optimize anything
portable
simple
fast
zero-overhead(-ffreestanding -nostdlib -static)

>>3
Not a language for full-scale applications.

>>4
The Unix philosophy emphasizes building short, simple, clear, modular, and extensible code that can be easily maintained and repurposed by developers other than its creators. The Unix philosophy favors composability as opposed to monolithic design.

>>4
The Unix philosophy emphasizes building short, simple, clear, modular, and extensible code that can be easily maintained and repurposed by developers other than its creators. The Unix philosophy favors composability as opposed to monolithic design.

D:
Code slower than JavaScript(DMD is 3x slower than C++,v8 is 1.5-2.0x slower)
Stop-the-world Garbage Collector
Bugs unfixed for years, horrible sepples codebase.
Libraries in state of flux, cannot be relied onto.
Proprietary backend(DMD) of reference implementation http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15188957/does-d-language-have-any-proprietary-baggage
Windowsx64 compilation requires microsoft's linker(DMD)
All features are implemented in DMD, then ported to LDC and GDC which both have small teams. All effort for these years goes to DMD and the compiler remains as shitty and buggy as ever.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28922323/improving-line-wise-i-o-operations-in-d
Features change rapidly, new features cannot be relied on.

>>6
The Unix philosophy leverages privilege separation and world-class Unix domain socket IPC stack to provide programmers worldwide with robust, scalable, modern turnkey implementations of flexible, modular, cutting edge message-based run-time system of of algorithmic architectures that accelerate response to theoretic and real-world integration demands and reliably adapt to evolving software needs, seamlessly and efficiently integrating and synchronizing with their existing legacy codebases, enhancing the information sharing capabilities of their code production environments across the enterprise while giving them a critical competitive advantage and taking them to the next level.

>>8
monolithic SystemD(bus) is anti-thesis of Unix Philosophy.

>>7
Your copy-pasta is long moldy and rotten.

>>10 Feel the Quality
here list of bugs in DMD/Druntime
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&order=Importance&product=D
Here is list of all gcc codebase bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?order=Importance&bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&cf_known_to_fail_type=allwords&cf_known_to_work_type=allwords&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&component=ada&component=awt&component=boehm-gc&component=bootstrap&component=c&component=c%2B%2B&component=classpath&component=cp-tools&component=crypto&component=debug&component=driver&component=fastjar&component=fortran&component=gcov-profile&component=gjdoc&component=go&component=inetlib&component=inline-asm&component=ipa&component=java&component=jit&component=libf2c&component=libffi&component=libfortran&component=libgcc&component=libgcj&component=libgomp&component=libitm&component=libmudflap&component=libobjc&component=libquadmath&component=libstdc%2B%2B&component=lto&component=middle-end&component=objc&component=objc%2B%2B&component=other&component=pch&component=pending&component=plugins&component=preprocessor&component=regression&component=rtl-optimization&component=sanitizer&component=spam&component=swing&component=target&component=testsuite&component=translation&component=tree-optimization&component=treelang&component=web&component=xml&product=gcc

>>11
Shit.

>>12
QUALITY Sepples Code: 102 contributors(among them top sepple-minds such as Walter,Alexandrescu,etc)
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/tree/master/src

>>13
Wait, isn't not being written in SEPPLES a good thing?

>>14
Its Sepples++ written in Sepples written in C, like most languages.

All I saw was the D: face.

>>16
thats the face you'll make often reading the D codebase