On 5/11/13 2:15 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"David Nadlinger"<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 17:36:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
- Breakages in Phobos will be experienced early on a large system using
them
I've talked about this with Simon Peyton-Jones who was unequivocal to
assert that writing the Haskell compiler in Haskell has had enormous
benefits in improving its quality.
This.
If we aren't confident that we can write and maintain a large real-world
application in D just yet, we must pull the emergency brakes on the whole
DDDMD effort, right now.
David
I'm confident in D, just not in phobos. Even if phobos didn't exist, we'd
still be in better shape using D than C++. What exactly are we going to
need from phobos? sockets? std.datetime? std.regex? std.container?
If we use them in the compiler, we effectively freeze them. We can't use
the new modules, because the old toolchains don't have them. We can't fix
old broken modules because the compiler depends on them. If you add code to
work around old modules being gone in later versions, you pretty much end up
moving the source into the compiler after all.
If we only need to be able to compile with a version from 6 months ago, this
is not a problem. A year and it's still workable. But two years? Three?
We can get something right here that gcc got so horribly wrong.
But you're exactly enumerating the problems any D user would face when
we make breaking changes to Phobos.
Andrei
