D vs. C#

[Jascha Wetzel]

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> Except, they're not really as easy to use.
> 
> With .NET, you can derive from a class in a compiled assembly without having access to the source. You just add the assembly in the project's dependencies and import the namespace with "using". In C, you must use the included .h files (and .h files are a pain to maintain anyway since you must maintain the declaration and implementation separately, but that's not news to you). You must still use .lib and .di files with D and such - although they can be automated in the build process, it's still a hassle. 
> 
> Besides that, statically linking in the runtime seems to be a too common practice, as "DLL hell" has been a discouragement for dynamically-linked libraries in the past (side-by-side assemblies is supposed to remedy that though). I guess the fault is not in the DLLs themselves, it's how people and Microsoft used them... 
> 

That is correct, but the obvious solution to that problem is to support 
the OO paradigm in dynamic linking. That is, we don't need a VM, we need 
DDL.
Had C++ standardized it's ABI, this problem would probably not exist today.