D vs. C#

[Chris Miller]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:28:42 -0400, Jascha Wetzel <firstname at mainia.de>  
wrote:

> 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.

   http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/
I don't know the whole deal, but I guess some decided not to go by this; I  
don't even know if DMC does or not.