On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:56:09 -0700, Artur Skawina <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
I agree, probably not the biggest one. But i've seen a lot of frustration
around the fact that D offers automatic header generation, but when you
actually use it, all it does is regurgitate your code. Headers mean
something to people. And DI files aren't even close to matching what they
are looking for.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
