Warning, ABI breakage from 2.074 to 2.075

[Jason King via Digitalmars-d]

And how many of those are claiming to be a systems programming language?

I have no problems with an unstable ABI, what I have a problem is with
claiming to be a systems programming language AND not having a stable ABI.
You realistically cannot have both — it seems like D is trying to have it’s
cake and eat it too and I’m just pointing out that it’s going to lead to
sadness.  If there are no plans to ever have a stable ABI, that’s fine (may
even be good for the long term usage of the language), just drop the whole
systems programming language bit and focus more on application level, but
I’ve not really seen any recognition of that.

On May 25, 2017 at 11:41:52 AM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d (
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com) wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:36:38 UTC, Jason King wrote:
> Yes it is a lot of work, which I strongly suspect is a big
> reason why C still reigns supreme at the systems level —
> because it does have a stable ABI which solves a lot of
> headaches from a systems point of view (obviously momentum and
> history are also very big reasons).
>
> If that’s the direction D wants to go in, there’s nothing wrong
> with that,
> but it needs to be setting the correct expectations for users.
> Not having
> a stable ABI is perfectly fine for application level stuff, but
> it can be
> rather (in some cases extremely) problematic for systems level
> stuff--that
> needs to be understood both by the users and the people working
> on D (and I
> haven’t really seen much recognition of it).
>
> On May 25, 2017 at 10:25:59 AM, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d
> (
> digitalmars-d at puremagic.com) wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:02:00 UTC, Jason King wrote:
>> That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a
>> systems programming language, less so for application focused
>> stuff. I would hope it’s at least an eventual goal even if
>> it’s not quite the case today.
>
> The reason we don't have ABI compatibility is the same reason
> neither Rust or Go does, it's a lot of work for a minority of
> users and it stops the language from progressing.
>
> Maybe D will have it eventually due to pressure from large D
> using companies, but I highly doubt it.

There was a long thread last month about getting dmd into Debian,
that discussed the ABI stability issue among others:

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/hhefnnighbowonxsnbdy@forum.dlang.org

ABI stability is not promised, not now or anytime soon, not just
from D but many languages, as Jack said. It just doesn't make
sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20170525/10e218a1/attachment.html>