Warning, ABI breakage from 2.074 to 2.075

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:36:38 UTC, Jason King wrote:
> Yes it is a lot of work, which I strongly suspect is a big 
> reason why C still reigns supreme at the systems level — 
> because it does have a stable ABI which solves a lot of 
> headaches from a systems point of view (obviously momentum and 
> history are also very big reasons).
>
> If that’s the direction D wants to go in, there’s nothing wrong 
> with that,
> but it needs to be setting the correct expectations for users.  
> Not having
> a stable ABI is perfectly fine for application level stuff, but 
> it can be
> rather (in some cases extremely) problematic for systems level 
> stuff--that
> needs to be understood both by the users and the people working 
> on D (and I
> haven’t really seen much recognition of it).
>
> On May 25, 2017 at 10:25:59 AM, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d 
> (
> digitalmars-d at puremagic.com) wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:02:00 UTC, Jason King wrote:
>> That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a 
>> systems programming language, less so for application focused 
>> stuff. I would hope it’s at least an eventual goal even if 
>> it’s not quite the case today.
>
> The reason we don't have ABI compatibility is the same reason 
> neither Rust or Go does, it's a lot of work for a minority of 
> users and it stops the language from progressing.
>
> Maybe D will have it eventually due to pressure from large D 
> using companies, but I highly doubt it.

There was a long thread last month about getting dmd into Debian, 
that discussed the ABI stability issue among others:

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/hhefnnighbowonxsnbdy@forum.dlang.org

ABI stability is not promised, not now or anytime soon, not just 
from D but many languages, as Jack said.  It just doesn't make 
sense.