On 05/10/12 00:15, Adam Wilson wrote: > 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. >
A "group of people" that wants to distribute binary closed-source libs, yet finds having to manually specify the API of their library to be a barrier? If having to write all the required declarations from scratch (instead of using some *.d -> *.di converter) is a real problem, then, umm, it's most likely not their biggest one... artur
