Warning, ABI breakage from 2.074 to 2.075

[Jason King via Digitalmars-d]

On May 26, 2017 at 12:11:09 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d (digitalmars-d at puremagic.com) wrote:

On 05/25/2017 01:04 PM, Jason King via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> 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

Why?

Unless it’s a completely self contained system, if you are operating at the
systems level, you are going to be providing the foundations for other
people’s code to build on (vs. application level stuff where you’re already
at the top).  Just imagine if every time you applied Windows updates or
applied a security fix to your OS of choice you had to rebuild every piece
of software you have, and if providing it to others, provide corresponding
versions of your code with every update and fix that was released with your
OS — not because anything of yours changed, but because just because you
wanted to fix a problem with the underlying system.   Trying to build
something on top of an unstable ABI is building your foundations on sand.

All I’m saying is if no attention is going to be paid to this (it doesn’t
mean you can’t change the ABI, but it needs to be managed it better than
‘whoops!’), just stop claiming the systems bit and stay up stack where this
isn’t a problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20170526/e8a8df50/attachment.html>