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

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?

I disagree that it's important, or even useful.

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).

An embedded system that can support all of D but doesn't have a cruntime? I don't believe it. If it has a cruntime then providing bindings is a non-issue, and if it can't support all of D then supporting only a subset (and then being free to exclude core.stdc) is inevitable.

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

I think it's more likely that those ports won't exist because those platforms don't exist.

Reply via email to