core.stdcpp

[eles via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 07:52:18 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "eles"  wrote in message 
> news:ybcxmuwwpsiyupwerzsa at forum.dlang.org...

> Requiring full c/OS bindings in druntime is so useful, and it 
> costs us so little.

But the request is simply to split the current druntime in a 
language-runtime and a phobos-runtime. The namespace and so on 
might even remain the same and the existing code would run 
unmodified. What is really important is that a clear separation 
exists between the two *inside* the implementation. The users of 
D are not concerned about that, the compiler designers are. Have, 
as now, the language-runtime + the phobos-runtime calles as 
druntime. Why does bother you a re-modularization of druntime?

> Besides a warm fuzzy feeling, not requiring them seems to only 
> benefit D implementations for theoretical platforms that 
> probably don't exist.

One such platform exists and is the embedded system, others are 
the linux kernel and the like, and even others are writing D 
compiler back-ends and, yes, druntimes (well, exactly the part 
that it is called phobos-runtime above).

If you make porting harder, then you can safely bet that those 
ports won't ever exist. But is this truly what we want?