"Adam Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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. >
My random ranting made it unclear, but my main point was that if a company requires their libs be distributed in binary-only form - for *whatever* reason - then they MUST accept that there will be things they *can't* do. Note that's *not* merely some policy I'm proposing that D take - it's hard, immutable reality.
