RFC: moving forward with @nogc Phobos

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 29 September 2014 20:49, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Destroy!
>
> Andrei

I generally like the idea, but my immediate concern is that it implies
that every function that may deal with allocation is a template.
This interferes with C/C++ compatibility in a pretty big way. Or more
generally, the idea of a lib. Does this mean that a lib will be
required to produce code for every permutation of functions according
to memory management strategy? Usually libs don't contain code for
uninstantiated templates.

With this in place, I worry that traditional use of libs, separate
compilation, external language linkage, etc, all become very
problematic.
Pervasive templates can only work well if all code is D code, and if
all code is compiled together.
Most non-OSS industry doesn't ship source, they ship libs. And if libs
are to become impractical, then dependencies become a problem; instead
of linking libphobos.so, you pretty much have to compile phobos
together with your app (already basically true for phobos, but it's
fairly unique).
What if that were a much larger library? What if you have 10s of
dependencies all distributed in this manner? Does it scale?

I guess this doesn't matter if this is only a proposal for phobos...
but I suspect the pattern will become pervasive if it works, and yeah,
I'm not sure where that leads.