On 7 January 2012 10:40, Adam Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:31:52 -0800, torhu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06.01.2012 21:02, Adam Wilson wrote: >> >>> >>> COFF is an absolute requirements when working on Windows, yet DMD doesn't >>> support it. Everything, every programming interface, every application >>> running on x64 Windows is built with COFF, the default output of every >>> other compiler on Windows is COFF, everyone else programming on Windows >>> is >>> expecting COFF. >>> Windows represents the largest OS install base in the world; and yet, >>> Windows based D programmers are told that they have to dig up extremely >>> esoteric tools from the darkest, smelliest, most cobwebbed corners of the >>> Internet, just to be able to interact with the the rest of the Windows >>> world. >>> >>> This situation is simply unacceptable. >>> >> >> It's not that bad. Most libraries can be compiled to DLL files, in fact >> that's often the default. DMD/Optlink can use DLL files created by other >> tool chains just fine. If an import library in the correct format is not >> available, just use implib or coffimplib to create one. No problem. >> > > First of all, what if I want to use a DLL lib file that was created by DMD > in VC++? Oh right, can't do that either. I know there are converter tools > available, but all of them are closed source, and what if the creator > decides one day that he is done? I'm stuck with no source and potential > bugs. > Second, as a professional, the idea that somehow the advice to download > Esoteric Tool X from Shady FTP Server Y is acceptable is completely beyond > me. No professional compiler implementation would DARE give that advice to > it's clients, they'd laugh and find another compiler that did what they > want. The concept of kludging together a build toolchain is uniquely open > source. DMD will never get buy-in from large groups of professionals > without natively supporting the things those professionals expect. > > Let me state that again for clarity. If DMD does not natively support the > standard outputs that professionals have come to expect and demand, then > DMD will forever remain a hobby toy. > > Professionals don't have time to kludge together a [fragile] build > toolchain and support it, they have work to do. Given the choice for a > large project right now, i'd have to say VC++ wins on Windows every time, > it's got COFF, excellent tooling and libraries, and x64 support; but > mostly, it works with everything Windows. DMD does not. Until DMD does, > professionals cannot seriously consider DMD.
Hear, hear!
