CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

Adam Wilson flyboynw at gmail.com
Wed May 9 15:15:01 PDT 2012

On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:07:44 -0700, Adam D. Ruppe  
<destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:41:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> Except that there is a distinct need for the DRuntime as a shared  
>> library.
> That doesn't really matter - you can deploy as a shared library
> and still use full source as the interface file.
> Hell, that's what putting implementations in the .di file
> does anyway!

Sure, but a lot of software developers, particularly those with money,  
don't want their source getting out, and in a lot of cases, there is no  
good reason to distribute the source. There are also a bunch of cases  
where you don't even want something to be CTFEable like Walter's example  
on a different thread of the GC. Why would ever want to CTFE the GC?

Until D starts to see some serious usage in business, it's never going to  
get out of "toy"/"hobby" language status in the eyes of the developer  
community at large. Few businesses want to release their source. DI's as a  
complete source file are a non-starter to that large segment of the  
development world. Improving DI generation is just taking down another  
barrier to D usage by that group of people.

Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list