Blog: GC

[Siemargl]

On Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:11:26 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 07:10:30 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>>
> As for the language being unusable (or rather, less usable) 
> without Phobos, I highly prefer it against more stuff being in 
> the compiler. First off, it's not like you either use all of 
> Phobos or no Phobos at all. Even a runtimeless device driver 
> could easily use parts std.algorithm and std.range, since they 
> are templated and do not depend on being linked to anything.

Is anywhere a list of such features ?
I've seen many talk about them, but no concretic.

>
> Second, if something does not work in Phobos, you can just 
> avoid using it and work around the problem. Often it's even 
> practical to give your workaround the same API as the Phobos 
> equivalent. I know because I have worked with compiling to 
> WASM. If that non-working feature were in the Druntime, you 
> suddently get obscure errors, often from the linker, due to 
> required DRuntime symbol missing. And if the compiler had the 
> non-working feature, you'd have to patch and recompile the 
> compiler before you can even start the real work!

I think, druntime and phobos were divided a couple of years ago. 
So i can use druntime, but without phobos.

Hmm, translator jokes - fixes druntime as drunktime =)