"eles"  wrote in message news:qrfucjdbmydvoqgey...@forum.dlang.org...

While this might be acceptable, there is one more question: what use to have the druntime separated from phobos, in this case?

Apart from the fact that it's too late to change of course.

For me the druntime shall include only the runtime components that are required for a program to function and on which one could build the whole standard library. And that would be: handling the arguments, the GC, basically, the D program execution model. And by D here I mean "the language", not the "batteries included".

Druntime and phobos both had c/OS bindings at some point (core.stdc + std.c) but duplication is bad, so they were/are being moved into druntime.

In druntime you have the true, hidden runtime code (startup, profiler, coverage, unittesting, AAs), plus core language stuff (GC, Thread (+core.time)).

Phobos is supposed to be 100% optional, although it isn't, quite. If you don't want to use phobos, for example if you are automatically porting a large C++ application, it's nice to simply ban phobos and have that clear distinction.

Reply via email to