On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 09:49:18 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 09:26:49 UTC, Andrey Zherikov
wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 09:12:26 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
That's the point many people have given here which is not
convincing him, even though it is quite great.
I think we all know the answer here 😂
IMHO you are both right :)
You are speaking about API compatibility, `[]() {}()` speaks
about ABI compatibility. The latter makes sense in
long-running production software. So we know that there are no
issues in API compatibility but we don't know anything about
ABI.
I am too dumb to know what ABI is
ABI is short for application binary interface. Where API means
how you use another module in source code, ABI means how you
would use that module in assembly langauge or machine code.
If two versions of a library have the same ABI, the program using
the library does not have to be recompiled, only relinked to the
new library (which happens at runtime if it's a dynamically
linked library).
It tends to be of less importance in D than in C or C++. First, D
modules usually compile quickly enough that premade binaries
(which would be hard to keep up to date with the source code
headers) don't make sense. Second, DUB standardises the build
process so binaries aren't needed for user convenience either.
Maybe the most important remaining use case is building a library
that can be used from other languages.
