Should binary sharing be done using Mixin Template?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 21.05.2011 11:26, schrieb Matthew Ong:
> Hi D Developer/Walter Bright,
>
> Coming from a VM environment.
>
> Should D be able to do binary sharing when the same template is being
> used for different data type.
>
> In java using template, the same LinkedList binary is shared for both
> String class type and also Integer class type.
>
> LinkedList<String> list=new LinkedList<String>();
> LinkedList<Integer> list=new LinkedList<Integer>();
>
> // Can also apply for Account/Order/PO...
> LinkedList<Account> list=new LinkedList<Account>();
>
> But there is a single LinkedList Class File(single binary).
>

This is because Javas generics are gone when the code is compiled, i.e. 
List<Integer> und List<String> is the same type.
I find them rather useless, you can't overload from Generics parameters:
   void foo(List<Integer> l) { ... }
   void foo(List<String> l) { ...  }
won't compile.
Totally different from D or C++ where a new type is created that is 
actually specific to the template parameter.

> Perhaps that is possible via some sort of binary plumbing internal to
> the compiler? I believe the wrapper is just to ensure the Object type
> handling casting concern. I might be wrong.
>

In D you can have non class types as template parameters.
And even with class types your code could handle different classes in a 
different way via "static if( is(T : MyType) ) { ... }" etc

> Accoding to Jonathan Davis,
>
>  >There is no linking involved in mixins. It's not shared.
>
> This approach I believe allow the final output be smaller even and
> pushes the D to be closer even to the dynamic ability of VM but without
> the extra over head.
>
> Can someone really say why this is a bad bad idea for memory with some
> automated plumbing being done like in ActiveX/Com/DCOM.
>
>