On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 00:04:54 UTC, sarn wrote:

I thought I'd write something up to help other people experiment with this stuff:

Thanks for this.

I abandoned D sometime ago largely because of https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14758 (but there were other reasons), so your blog post is interesting to me. It is unfortunate that we have to resort to such hackery, but its nice to have such tools at our disposal regardless.

I proposed another idea for giving users more control over D Runtime by moving runtime hook definitions to .di header files. If you're interested, you can read about it here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/psssnzurlzeqeneag...@forum.dlang.org. I'd much rather have something like that over a -betterC; you can read more about some disadvantages to expanding on -betterC (e.g. removing RTTI) here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/nevipjrkdqxivoerf...@forum.dlang.org.

I've largely embraced Rust now for its "no runtime" and "no dependencies libcore" features (and a few other safety/robustness features), but I miss the modeling power and compile-time features of D greatly.

Anyway, thanks for the post; it's given me a few ideas.


Reply via email to