On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:07:44 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a shared
library.
That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
and still use full source as the interface file.
Hell, that's what putting implementations in the .di file
does anyway!
Sure, but a lot of software developers, particularly those with money,
don't want their source getting out, and in a lot of cases, there is no
good reason to distribute the source. There are also a bunch of cases
where you don't even want something to be CTFEable like Walter's example
on a different thread of the GC. Why would ever want to CTFE the GC?
Until D starts to see some serious usage in business, it's never going to
get out of "toy"/"hobby" language status in the eyes of the developer
community at large. Few businesses want to release their source. DI's as a
complete source file are a non-starter to that large segment of the
development world. Improving DI generation is just taking down another
barrier to D usage by that group of people.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
