version: multiple conditions

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:30:50 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 6/29/2015 8:30 AM, bitwise wrote:
>> FWIW, I've thought through most of my use cases, and it seems I can do  
>> without
>> this feature(both mine and Daniels suggestions). This is mainly because  
>> I've
>> decided to write anything close to the system in C++. If/When the day  
>> comes that
>> system APIs are written in D, this may change, but I don't see this  
>> happening in
>> the foreseeable future. IMO, the D community's time would be better  
>> spent
>> improving D/C++ interop than trying to make D a systems language. At a  
>> glance, I
>> don't see a binding for OpenCV or FBX SDK, and although there are many  
>> bindings
>> for OpenGL and such, I wouldn't feel safe relying on them to be up to  
>> date or
>> complete. The lesser evil clearly seems to be writing some C++.
>
>
> I don't believe a macro processor is necessary to write systems code,  
> nor do I believe version expressions are, either.

Was pretty sure I worded that wrong.

I'm willing to concede at this point that if I was writing some fresh new  
systems code, I could deal with the limitations of 'version', and that it  
does seem like good practice not to spam preprocessors/version everywhere,  
but for me, a big selling point of D is _not_ having to  
re-write/refactor/re-think my code.

 From the point I picked up D, and having a strong background in C++, it  
just felt natural, and I was able to start programming with it  
immediately. I've been able to transfer over a lot of design-patterns/code  
with little to no effort.

Still though, I think that with the dominance of C++ for system APIs, it  
makes more sense right now to keep the interop layer as narrow as  
possible, and just access the system from C++. I can then create a small  
group of interfaces for accessing graphics/audio/etc..

So I guess this nullifies my original grievance. Sorry for nagging :)

   Bit