Instructions for compilation from multiple source files

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:18:05 +0000
Solomon E via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>
wrote:

> I do know about how to use GCC and where the documentation for
> that is. I know what .o files and .a files are in terms of GCC
> for C, because there's tons of documentation about that. I
> thought that there might be a little bit of documentation about
> what they are for D, or a specification.
as for D... they are compiled object files. exactly the same thing as
for c++, gnu pascal or any other language in GCC that produces .o. are
you expecting them to be something special? then you'll read about that
in gdc manpage.

> A language that's about
> "grokking" things (I've read Stranger in a Strange Land, so I
> "grok" what it means) is not the sort of language that I want to
> use. I prefer that a language that specifies what a computer is
> to do be specified itself. That is all.
how this belongs to particular D compiler? you are *expected* to
understand what is "being part of GCC suite" for GNU D compiler. it's
not about language at all, it's about toolchain. and this is not the
only one compiler available, and there inevitably will be more. do you
expecting to read about every specific compiler implementation in
language dox? DMD happens to be special one 'cause it's a "reference
compiler" for D. yet there is nothing special in DMD, it's an ordinary
command-line compiler. if you know how to use one of them, you know how
to use all of them.

> I don't want to use an IDE that pretends to have AI about what to
> do for me, just because a language doesn't have enough
> documentation to let me know what to do for myself.
should D documentation include all all POSIX documentation for core
utils, 'cause some of them can be needed to work with source files? and
for VIM, and for Emacs and for all other editors, 'cause, ahem, they
can be used to edit D sources? you are *expected* to know how your
system works, what "file" and "directory" is, what is "compiling to
object file", what is "linking" and so on. if there is something that
deviates from common system way of doing things, only then it is
documented. like gdc-specific command line arguments.

> In this case it's about the
> tiny amount of documentation for GDC, which assumes that users
> will know about using GCC for C or C++ and will apply a diff of
> how D differs from those to use it for D.
it's the easiest way to describe such things. i don't see how it is
necessary to copy and paste all GCC documentation for gdc.

> In other cases I've
> seen all over the "Language Reference" it's the same thing: D is
> described roughly as a diff of C and C++
you realised that language reference is not meant for those who
learning how to program, didn't you? there is the excellent book by Ali
Çehreli which is not "diff" and targeted to those who learning D, for
example. and then you are expected to read documentation for GCC if you
are planning to use gdc, as gdc is a part of GCC.

there is nothing unsusual in not finding the information you want if
you are looking for it in the wrong place. physics textbook will not
start with teaching you simple math.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20141110/0081cf6c/attachment.sig>