A gentle critque..

[Chad J]

James Pelcis wrote:
> 
> True.  This has been discussed before, but has been rejected
> intentionally.  We don't want every D compiler to end up being a C
> compiler, too.
> 

This has always been a sore spot with me and D.  There is A LOT of C/C++
code out there to leverage off of, and to me it is beyond inconvenient
to require translation of all of those headers.  Also, rewriting all of
the code with a handful of D developer seems like insanity to me.

That said, the two known D compilers are also C++ compilers (or at least
share backends with C++ compilers).  What a handy coincidence.  I'd say
that being able to link against C++ code shouldn't be part of the D
spec, at least not permanently, but being able to link against C++ code
should be supported by current D compilers just to get things moving for
D.  Then maybe someday compiler writers will save some effort by
ditching C++ support because no one will use C++ anymore.

I'm probably rehashing old arguments, but this matters to me.  Also, it
would be nice to have some links to those old arguments.  Normally I'd
find them myself, but this topic has proven itself a difficult search
(at least with Thunderbird).

Oh and whatever happened to all of those C header to D translation
projects?  Did people run into some sort of fundamental law of the
universe that made it impossible, or was it just difficult enough to
discourage everyone for a couple years?