Why Ruby?

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Dec 11 12:24:44 PST 2010


On Saturday 11 December 2010 11:48:36 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 12/11/10 8:30 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > You don't need that compatability with dlls? _That_ I did not know. That
> > would help a _lot_ in my case then, because most of our projects are
> > shared libraries. It doesn't entirely solve the problem, but in this
> > case, it's enough that it may make it feasible to actually do some stuff
> > in D.
> 
> Yes, you don't need object file compatibility if you don't link in the
> DLL via an implib, but instead look up the symbols dynamically (e.g. via
> LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress on Windows).
> 
> If I remember correctly, there are some tools for generating OMF implibs
> as well, but they have never worked for me…
> 
> By the way, this reminds me that we desperately need solid
> cross-platform dynamic library support in Phobos – std.loader is
> undocumented, does not conform to the Phobos coding style, and exposes a
> very strange API (ExeModule is a scope class? WTF?). In SWIG, for
> example, I use a homegrown solution based on the loading code from
> Derelict2, but I'd very much prefer having this in Phobos.
> 
> This will probably get even more important if shared library support
> will eventually be added to DMD (When was this scheduled to happen
> again? After 64bit support and fixing the const system?).

I expect that the loader would be fixed after shared library support in the 
compiler was fixed. Shared library support was supposed to be after 64-bit 
support, but there has been talk about fixing the const stuff next, so I don't 
know if shared library support is really going to happen immediately following 
64-bit support or not. It's high on the list though.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list