Does D have too many features?

[Era Scarecrow]

On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 23:50:22 UTC, foobar wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 21:02:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> * di files - a library should encapsulate all the info 
>>> required
>>> to use it. Java Jars, .Net assemblies and even old school; 
>>> Pascal
>>> units all solved this long ago.

> I agree with the general notion here. Whatever the actual 
> implementation details are, the API should be strongly tied to 
> the binary in order to insure consistency and ease of use. I 
> shouldn't need to worry if the header files match the binary 
> library. Regarding the human readable API - that's why we have 
> documentation for.

  Mmm well the main reason I see using .di files, is cases when 
the input library/file/dll doesn't give you much or any 
information. like... most dll's today. There's also tools to 
strip that extra debugging and structure information from your 
output file, so if you distribute a binary only, you still need 
to include it's .h file or .di file.

  Cases where this would be far more relevant could be in systems 
that don't have a lot of room (mini-distros or recovery disks for 
example). I've seen a recovery disk distro with everything you 
needed 2 floppies disks. Only reason I don't use floppies anymore 
is the ones being made are crap and don't keep data where as 14 
years ago I could accidentally put mine through the wash and 
still access it's contents. (Cheap bastards)