"Mike"  wrote in message news:bkkdiikafdsraqssj...@forum.dlang.org...

> I really don't see a practical problem with having them in druntime, > only a philosophical one.

It give the impression that D requires the C standard library, the C++ standard library, and an full-featured desktop OS in order to function. If I create a port without core.stdc, it can be argued that my port is incomplete. Well I argue that my port is a complete implementation of the language and core.stdc is not part of the D language.

What platform supports threads and GC but doesn't have a C lib available? I certainly would argue that this hypothetical port is incomplete, not because druntime including bindings to libc declares it part of the language, but because I can't see a good reason not to include them.

Then they can be put in their own library instead of phobos.

Yes, they could. IMO the downsides of having to maintain a third library outweighs the 'correctness' advantage, or even having a different root package for this stuff. And there is no way it's ever going to change at this point.

That's even better as far as I'm concerned. GTKD isn't part of phobos or druntime. I don't see libc as being any different (in principle) than GTKD.

Druntime doesn't use GTK, so it is different. The inclusion of C/OS bindings is historical, and not worth changing.

> and they are used in druntime internally.

For a practical implementation, those ports that have a libc can make use of it, but it should be internal, and isolated from the language implementation and the other ports, as is the spirit of 11666.

There is no point as the bindings are already in druntime and there is very little chance that is going to change.

But you could take it a step further for the principled approach. Implement those few features of libc that are needed by the druntime in D, and earn some bragging rights.

You could, but it has very little practical value. I personally wouldn't waste my time bragging to someone who thinks druntime depending on libc is an argument against D.

Why create DDMD? We already have an implementation in C++, right. What a waste of time... (of course I'm being facetious. Forgive me, but I think it's a great example of why we should do something in D even though a C/C++ implementation exists. No offense intended)

It's possible you missed the point of DDMD. DMD is an actively developed codebase which can benefit from many of the features D offers. Well, that was my motivation anyway. I know other people got excited by the idea for other reasons.

There is no practical advantage (to the project) from converting a fully debugged, optimized application or library to another language, unless the language barrier is preventing interop. A libc written in D would not give us anything of practical value.

That's exactly my point. The debate that ensued with 11666 had nothing to do with the spirit of 11666. If those OS bindings weren't in druntime, 11666 would already be implemented without controversy. And we'd likely already have a few more ports of D to other platforms. The 11666 debate belongs in a std.linux debate or a liblinux debate or some other OS API port debate.

No, the exact same thing would have happened if they were in a different package/repository. A different root package would not change the contributors or contribution process.

Publicly exposing core.stdc and the OS bindings in druntime is getting in the way of bringing D to more platforms, and the 11666 debate demonstrates that.

This is just nonsense.  Changing the root package changes nothing.

Or those features in libc could be implemented in D, removing the artificial dependency on libc.

Re-implementing debugged and optimized code is a waste of time.

Only the *port* should have bindings to libc. The language implementation should not. Again those bindings should be encapsulated in the port, not publicly exposed as part of the D language.

1) Being part of druntime does not automatically mean something HAS to be available on every platform. eg the windows bindings are not available on non-windows 2) I don't see any point in not exposing the c lib from druntime, nor do I see any platform where that would be a problem that does not have much more serious issues with hosting D.

* It conflates the language with the platform. druntime should be solely the implementation of the language, not an OS API.

I disagree, having the OS API in druntime is great and not a problem.

* It conflates the implementation of the language with bindings for external libraries.

C interop is part of D. Low level (direct) access to operating system APIs is part of D. Exposing them is useful.

Again, druntime is the language implementation, not an application programming framework.

By this logic the C lib header files and windows.h files make an application programming framework.

* It sets the wrong precedent for a systems programming language. IMO a true systems programming language should be self-reliant. That is, it should be a language that can be used to build the first layer of hardware abstraction.

D can be used for that. But realistically, this is a constrained environment which will use a custom druntime, and be restricted to a subset of D.

* It creates artificial dependencies when there's no real dependency. C++ being a superset of C is an example of a real dependency. That is not D.

I don't consider this to be a problem worth worrying about.

* It gets in the way of porting the language to more platforms and complicates maintenance of the runtime. Case in point: the 11666 debate.

No, it doesn't. Even if these bindings weren't in druntime, they'd be in another official library. Nothing would be different with respect to 11666.

* It makes D unportable to some platforms without creating their own dialect of the language or their own D runtime implementation

I expect D is already unportable to these platforms without doing these things. Removing libc bindings would not change this.

In summary, I believe libc, libstd++, and the OS bindings should be encapsulated and isolated by the ports that need them, not publicly exposed as part of the D language implementation. Having bindings to these these libraries is super important, and I'm glad they exists. I just don't think they belong in the D language implementation, except as encapsulated, isolated artifacts of ports that need them.

In an ideal world, the bindings would be more cleanly separated from other runtime stuff. But they're not. It would require a very compelling argument to move them now, and this really isn't it.

We could document that core.stdc is not a required part of a D implementation, but it should be trivial to provide on any platform that can support a complete the rest of D, so there doesn't seem to be any point.

Reply via email to