CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

Nick Sabalausky SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
Wed May 9 17:12:57 PDT 2012


"Adam Wilson" <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wd2beab6707hn8 at apollo.hra.local...
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:17:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky 
> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>
>> My take, FWIW:
>>
>> 1. DI is only useful for those anachronistic corporations who beleive in
>> code-hiding (and even then, only the ones who release libs), which
>> regardless of everything else, isn't even *realistic* anyway - there's
>> always reverse-engineering, and with the super-popular JS there *IS NO*
>> pre-compiled form, and yet non-OSS companies *still* get by just fine
>> anyway. If you're relying on the increasingly-irrelevent practice of
>> code-hiding (which there is *no such thing* - only obfuscation, which is
>> exactly what compiling does, it only obfuscates the source, it doesn't 
>> hide
>> it), then you need to accept that there *are* going to be things you will
>> *never* be able to do, period, like virtual templates (which *are* 
>> possible
>> in theory if all the source is available, even if D doesn't currently 
>> allow
>> it).
>
> Anachronistic or not, MANY companies still require it. And JS is not 
> exactly D, they attack to very different segments. And most companies 
> don't put anything of intellectual value in JS. But im not hear to argue 
> the morality of the point. Only that the DI generation issue will stop a 
> lot of groups from using D.
>

My random ranting made it unclear, but my main point was that if a company 
requires their libs be distributed in binary-only form - for *whatever* 
reason - then they MUST accept that there will be things they *can't* do.

Note that's *not* merely some policy I'm proposing that D take - it's hard, 
immutable reality.




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list