On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 07:52:18 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"eles" wrote in message
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?