core.stdcpp

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d-announce]

"eles"  wrote in message news:rixtiaiokrukvqjsfrdh at forum.dlang.org...

> But the request is simply to split the current druntime in a 
> language-runtime and a phobos-runtime. The namespace and so on might even 
> remain the same and the existing code would run unmodified. What is really 
> important is that a clear separation exists between the two *inside* the 
> implementation. The users of D are not concerned about that, the compiler 
> designers are. Have, as now, the language-runtime + the phobos-runtime 
> calles as druntime. Why does bother you a re-modularization of druntime?

I disagree that it's important, or even useful.

> One such platform exists and is the embedded system, others are the linux 
> kernel and the like, and even others are writing D compiler back-ends and, 
> yes, druntimes (well, exactly the part that it is called phobos-runtime 
> above).

An embedded system that can support all of D but doesn't have a cruntime?  I 
don't believe it.  If it has a cruntime then providing bindings is a 
non-issue, and if it can't support all of D then supporting only a subset 
(and then being free to exclude core.stdc) is inevitable.

> If you make porting harder, then you can safely bet that those ports won't 
> ever exist. But is this truly what we want?

I think it's more likely that those ports won't exist because those 
platforms don't exist.