Is all this Invarient **** er... stuff, premature optimisation?

[Me Here]

Walter Bright wrote:

>Me Here wrote:
>>That, for example, does not mean simply substituting an object handle
>>for an OS handle. Nor caching of derived values unless their
>>derivation is truly expensive. Nor the use of getters and setters to
>>avoid direct manipulation of attributes, unless there is some genuine
>>value-add from doing so. OO-dogma that they will isolate the library
>>from speculative future changes in the underlying OS calls (that have
>>been fixed in stone for 1 or4 decades or more) do not cut much ice
>>with me.
>
>I'm of the same opinion with that.
>
>>One of the things that force me to go away from D a couple of years
>>ago was the ever changing state of the libraries. Not the internal,
>>implementations or occasional bugs, but the constantly changing
>>interface definitions.
>
>That's why D 1.0 was split off. It was done to provide a stable platform 
>that only gets bug fixes.

Understood, but when I went to upgrade from my very old 1.x version and 
discovered there was a D2,
I did look for an explaination (on the web sote rather than in the forums) 
and came up short.

I guess the clue was in the alpha status, but a few lines somewhere on the 
download page explaining the
difference wouldn't go amiss.

As I also mentioned, the descriptions I found (whilst looking for the 
above) of the new D2 language features
drew me to it. Without thinking the the implications, it strikes me that a 
segregation of the compilers from
the runtimes would allow the mating of the d2 compiler with the D1 
libraries?

The D1 libraries themselves would not use or benefit from the new D2 
language features but it would allow
applications access to those features whilst retaining the stability of D1 
libraries.

But that probably entails extra work, as well as a not inconsiderable 
amount of careful consideration
regarding the long term implications, so don't take it as a request. Just 
a notion in passing.

Anyway, I did promise to get outta yer hair, so...I'm gone.

Thanks again, b.

--