OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

Yigal Chripun yigal100 at gmail.com
Mon May 18 22:40:48 PDT 2009

grauzone wrote:
> Just because it doesn't work on your shitty (SCNR) platform, it doesn't 
> mean it's wrong. On Unix, there's a single ABI for C, and linking Just 
> Works (TM).

do YOU want D to succeed?
that shitty platform is 90% of the market.
> But I kind of agree. The most useful thing about compiling each module 
> to an object file is to enable separate compilation. But this is 
> useless: it doesn't work because of bugs, it doesn't "scale" (because a 
> single module is likely to have way too many transitive dependencies).
>> I'm not suggesting coping Java's model letter for letter or using a VM 
>> either, but rather using a better representation.
> Ew, that's even worse. Java's model is right out retarded.
> I'd just compile a D project to a single (classic) object file. That 
> would preserve C compatibility. Because the compiler knows _all_ D 
> modules at compilation, we could enable some spiffy stuff, like virtual 
> template functions or inter-procedural optimization.

Instead of compiling per module, it should be more course grained like 
on the package/project level. in C# you can compile a single file and 
get a "module" file (IIRC), but that's a rare thing. usually you work 
with assemblies.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list