A Case for Oxidation: A potential missed opportunity for D

[rikki cattermole]

On 29/06/2018 11:36 PM, kinke wrote:
> On Friday, 29 June 2018 at 11:24:52 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> It is a language feature yes, and it doesn't define /how/ it gets 
>> implemented.
> 
> That's besides my actual point though (and I haven't even mentioned 
> missing class support, which is everything but helping with developing 
> against existing C++ codebases).

It was besides mine as well.

> My question is: what do people expect to gain by not linking in druntime 
> and Phobos? Is there a feeling the binaries are unnecessarily bloated 
> (-> minimal runtime)? Is it making cross-compilation harder (LDC has the 
> ldc-build-runtime tool for that)? Is it the cozy feeling that the GC 
> won't used at all? ...

Simple, it isn't there to prevent technical issues, it is to remove 
mental barriers.

There is a field dedicated to researching this, called Human Computer 
Interaction (HCI) and so far, it seems to have been what was needed for 
its users.

You and I do not suffer this block. But many do, and it is as hard and 
concrete to them as not having actual proper shared library support is 
to me.