Re: The D Programming Language

Raoul Gough wrote:


I think this is true only until a library solution becomes
standardized. I know that with Microsoft and probably others, there
are parts of the standard library that are in precompiled libraries and
dlls. If you wanted to replace a piece, it is likely you would have to
replace a lot of pieces. Sometimes you can do that, sometimes not. I
have read in other discussion along these lines (for example when
Walter mentions having builtin complex types) that the C++ compiler is
allowed to treat std library things specially. Specifically, any
includes of std headers can just magically fill the symbol tables with
new stuff without ever having to read an actual file. The compiler can
recognize std::complex<> and generate optimal code for it etc. The
combination of these two things mean that you can not portably replace
the std library anymore than you can portably redefine a keyword.


Not if they become standardized. If they become standardized, they
will be drug around forever because no one will want to break existing
code. Again this is very much the same as if they added support for
the core. I don't really know D, but it does allow libraries as well,
so if something new came about, poof new library and some folks would
stop using the builtins, others would probably continue using them.

The only real benefit of libraries is the development of new features.
You can try things out until you like the results. Once you
standardize them though, they become just as burdensome as core
keywords.

joe

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]