MiniD binding library update, better compilation on Linux

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fi55nn$30pl$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Will MiniD support as much as possible of the D standard?

MiniD's a scripting language in the vein of Lua and Squirrel.  Beyond some 
basic syntactic and semantic similarities to D, it bears little resemblance 
to it.

> If not, what are the reasons why one should not use DMDScript instead? (I 
> can guess only one - license)

Even DMDScript has nothing to do with D.  For that matter, I have no idea 
why it's called DMDScript.  Because the D version is compiled with DMD?  Who 
knows.  It's an implementation of ECMAScript (JavaScript).

DMDScript is fine if you're making a DOM compatible web browser and not much 
else.  As you've mentioned, the license is an issue.  The native API is 
extremely basic.  ECMAScript itself is not often used outside of web 
scripting mostly because it's sort of a vanilla language with not many 
features.

MiniD as a language has a much richer set of features compared to 
ECMAScript.  The reference implementation has also been designed from the 
ground up to be truly integrated with D: it uses D's exceptions, D's GC, 
makes heavy use of templates, and is object-oriented.  No other scripting 
language implementation (even DMDScript) can make those claims when it comes 
to D.