On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:17:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
<[email protected]> wrote:
My take, FWIW:
1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive in
code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
regardless of everything else, isn't even *realistic* anyway - there's
always reverse-engineering, and with the super-popular JS there *IS NO*
pre-compiled form, and yet non-OSS companies *still* get by just fine
anyway. If you're relying on the increasingly-irrelevent practice of
code-hiding (which there is *no such thing* - only obfuscation, which is
exactly what compiling does, it only obfuscates the source, it doesn't
hide
it), then you need to accept that there *are* going to be things you will
*never* be able to do, period, like virtual templates (which *are*
possible
in theory if all the source is available, even if D doesn't currently
allow
it).
Anachronistic or not, MANY companies still require it. And JS is not
exactly D, they attack to very different segments. And most companies
don't put anything of intellectual value in JS. But im not hear to argue
the morality of the point. Only that the DI generation issue will stop a
lot of groups from using D.
2. We should be seriously looking into the idea of making CTFE work by
executing already-compiled code, a la Nemerle (but without needing the
extra
build step). There may be enough technical hurdles involved to hold this
back for [the still-hypothtical] D3, but it should at least be a
direction
we should be seriously considering. (Unless someone can already come up
with
a deal-breaking reason now.) Actually, there's *FAR* more important
things
than this right now, like a solid ARM-tablet toolchain, so this should
definitely just be an "on hold for now" feature.
I concur here. There are definitely more important things than making CTFE
work against object-code.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
