A gentle critque..
Jarrett Billingsley
kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com
Mon May 15 11:18:17 PDT 2006
"Ben Cooley" <Ben_member at pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:e4a3rm$25v9$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Again.. Java and C# have their own advatages which tend to outweigh some
> of the
> disadvantages of not having direct and immediate access to system level
> libraries written in C and C++. Yet D is intended as a system level
> programming
> languages. The fact that it can't understand the entire body of system
> level
> code in C and C plus plus, and it doesn't play nice with C plus plus is a
> serious.. probably fatal.. drawback.
Most truly system-level code is written in C, with which D can already
interface on a binary level. So why bother making D compile C, when there
are tons of C compilers out there already, and if D can already link with C
code?
As for C++, name _one other language besides C++_ that can natively link
with C++. IT CANNOT BE DONE, for the reasons already explained: there is no
unified C++ ABI, and as such, C++ libraries generated by different C++
compilers are often binary-incompatible. Making D binary compatible with
C++ would mean nothing; it'd be binary compatible with one small segment of
C++ code and nothing else.
> It can be.. but I think it's wishful thinking to compare D to C# or java
> for a
> number of reasons.
If you mean they can't be compared because C# and Java had large,
multinational companies backing their development, then yes, I agree that
they can't be compared with D in terms of the "star power" that they have
been given by their deep-pocketed creators. However, in terms of
simplicity, orthogonality, and expressiveness, D just seems like a
system-level version of C# and Java.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list