boost crowd.

[Maxim Fomin]

2011/11/28 so <so at so.so>:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> "D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
>>> generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
>>> automatically from source, so you don't need to worry about
>>> maintaining redundant files separately, unless you really wish to, in
>>> which case you can. Yep, that stops that nag right in mid-sentence."
>>>
>>> But it is not true...
>>
>> How is it not true?
>
> I don't know if .di generation from .d or .h is any good or bad,
> but the comparison of auto-generated .di files to hand crafted .h files
> doesn't make sense.
>

It is true and makes sense until D will stop claiming .di files are
interface files.
I also was curious how should i replace C library style with .h and .c files.
In D, when compiler generate "interface" it effectively dumps
implementation in .di file.
I see no difference (except braces and indentation) between generated
.di code and manually written .d code.

Furthermore, considering problems with libraries, written in GC language,
and broken shared libraries support in linux (probably it is fixed
now, i looked this issue several month ago)
writing libraries in D is full of surprises.

I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib separately,
but came to conclusion
that the best choice it to pull lib code to project one.
And it is not a biggest problem, because dmd produces 700 kb
executable for hello word program.