Compilation strategy

[Walter Bright]

On 12/17/2012 5:28 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Using PIMPL only helps if you're trying to hide implementation details
> of a struct or class. Anything that requires CTFE is out of the
> question. Templates are out of the question (this was also true with
> C++). This reduces the incentive to adopt D, since they might as well
> just stick with C++. We lose.

I've never seen any closed-source companies reticent about using C++ because of 
obfuscation issues, which are the same as for D, so I do not see this as a problem.


> If we implement a way of "hiding" implementation details that *allows*
> CTFE and templates (and thus one up the C++ situation), this will create
> a stronger incentive for D adoption. It doesn't matter if it's not hard
> to "unhide" the implementation;

Yes, it does, because we would be lying if we were pretending this was an 
effective solution.

> we don't lose anything (having no way to
> hide implementation is what we already have), plus it increases our
> chances of adoption -- esp. by enterprises, who are generally the kind
> of people who even care about this issue in the first place, and who are
> the people we *want* to attract. Sounds like a win to me.

We'd lose credibility with them, as people will laugh at us over this.


> But then again, even if we never do this, it makes no difference to *me*
> -- the current situation is good enough for *me*. The question is
> whether or not we want to D to be better received by enterprises.

As I said, C++ is well received by enterprises. This is not an issue.