A gentle critque..

[Ben Cooley]

In article <e49cu3$13gk$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
>
>Chad J wrote:
>
>> I have even more trouble believing that current D compilers shouldn't
>> support C plus plus integration just because it might make C plus plus
>> compilation a required capability of a D compiler.
>
>This isn't a "just because", C++ is known to be excessively hard to compile
>right, and one of the goals of D is to be easy to compile, to make sure you
>actually get compilers that are standard compliant and produce correct code
>within a sensible timeframe.

That's certainly a good reason.  However, it doesn't help me or any other
programmer out in the real world which have to deal with very large quantities
of frequently updated c and c plus plus third party libraries.

D's role right now is as an enthusiast language for closed world small scale
projects which can be written by hand converting existing c headers.  Is this
the ultimate intent of this language?

I would say that a "header compiler" that just compiles both C and C plus plus
headers into a format directly useable by D, and modifications to D such that it
can easily use foreign C plus plus object types would be all that I would need..
along with the ability for the D compiler to produce output that could be linked
and debugged with existing C and C plus plus compilers on linux and windows.