On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 07:52:18 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"eles" wrote in message news:ybcxmuwwpsiyupwer...@forum.dlang.org...

Requiring full c/OS bindings in druntime is so useful, and it costs us so little.

But the request is simply to split the current druntime in a language-runtime and a phobos-runtime. The namespace and so on might even remain the same and the existing code would run unmodified. What is really important is that a clear separation exists between the two *inside* the implementation. The users of D are not concerned about that, the compiler designers are. Have, as now, the language-runtime + the phobos-runtime calles as druntime. Why does bother you a re-modularization of druntime?

Besides a warm fuzzy feeling, not requiring them seems to only benefit D implementations for theoretical platforms that probably don't exist.

One such platform exists and is the embedded system, others are the linux kernel and the like, and even others are writing D compiler back-ends and, yes, druntimes (well, exactly the part that it is called phobos-runtime above).

If you make porting harder, then you can safely bet that those ports won't ever exist. But is this truly what we want?

Reply via email to