DMD - Windows

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:oftpypayqrnhjqkmwthk at dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
> On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 00:32:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>   "Zo-mah-gawd, look at the size of those D executables! D sux!"
>>
>> Which happens now.
>
> My problem with this is a shared lib actually *increases*
> the size. At best, it fools you by separating it out into
> two or three files instead of one.
>
> A better solution to the executable size problem is to
> actually make them smaller, like Andrei was doing a couple
> weeks ago. He made a huge difference just by changing a
> handful of lines to reduce unnecessary coupling in Phobos.
>
>> Note that the default with gcc is to link with the shared C runtime, and 
>> it will be expected for dmd.
>
> The big difference there is people usually already have the
> C runtime and use it for many programs. They don't actually
> have to think about installing it.
>
> Imagine how many people, especially on Linux, will now
> start asking "I built a D program, but when I run it, it
> complains that it can't find libphobos2.so", or the already
> somewhat common version mismatches that happen when you update
> one but not the other.
>
>
> Would you rather have someone complaining about a 200 kb
> executable, on an executable that doesn't work right without
> end user action?

Absolutely agree 100%.

Besides, "1MB Hello Word?!?" is just moronic whining. Christ, I'm on a 
32-bit single-core with 2GB ram, I bitch about software bloat constantly, 
and yet even **I** don't give half a shit about it, and even I'm not 
*remotely* inconvenienced by trivial apps being a few hundred k, or even a 
few M, too large. WTF does it matter? Those people are just trying to find 
bullshit to moan about. Fix that and they'll find some reason to whine about 
underscores in numeric literals.

Additionally, Phobos is different with every release. Are we seriously going 
to expect D users, and worse - the end-users of D-made software, to have 
their system cluttered with libphobos2-065.so, libphobos2-066.so, 
libphobos2-067.so, etc. Or are we going to pretend that issue doesn't exist 
and create our own little DDLL hell? (And on top of that: "Why do I have 
hundreds of megs worth of this damn libphobos?") Even if dynamic phobos does 
become default at some point, *at the very least*, it shouldn't be until 
Phobos stabalizes. Realistically, it shouldn't be until libphobos is stable 
*and* about as common as libc.