What can be done to reduce executable size?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/16/11 4:21 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/11 1:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> This is fine, but the whole point of static ctors in D is to
>>> eliminate all the stupid workarounds required to use statics in
>>> C++. I'd much rather we find a way to make the use of static
>>> ctors more efficient than give up on the feature.
>>
>> I agree, but then I think we have a design that's already there.
>> This discusses working some kinks out of the implementation. Also,
>> the context of the runtime/standard library is an appropriate place
>> to take less usual measures for the benefit of many.
>
> But at the same time, the standard library should be an example of
> how to do things "the right way."

More often, APIs and examples given in the docs are examples of how to 
do things the right way; the standard library's implementation has a bit 
of a different charter than most application code, and this is triply 
true for systems languages. This is emphatically true for e.g. C, C++, 
and Perl. I also remember I was surprised when I peeked inside a 
functional language's library implementation. ("That's not how they 
teach them to write sort!")

> By preferring the C++ approach
> over static ctors in the standard library, we're suggesting that
> static ctors are not the right approach for the discriminating
> programmer.

And they may as well not be, subject to whatever unique constraints to 
overcome.

> I do agree that the design is already there, but perhaps
> the implementation needs refinement?

That's a given!


Andrei