www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Why are you people so hostile?

reply SpookyET <not4_u hotmail.com> writes:

And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then  
yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that  
wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and  
under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is  
why they support classes.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 22 2004
next sibling parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
SpookyET wrote:



 And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then  
 yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that  
 wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and  
 under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is  
 why they support classes.
 


It's not hostility, it's disagreement. (there's a big difference) 
Suggesting improvements to D is great, but it's obvious that there's not 
much support for what you're proposing.  Them's the breaks.

Can we drop this discussion now?

  -- andy
Feb 22 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
SpookyET wrote:







different form.  Suggesting a syntax change of these forms is not a good 

already exists is also a bad idea.

Another thing is you keep mixing up the library with the language itself 
(well I admit some of these lines are blurred sometimes).  D's library 
is in its infancy, so if you want to contribute some code to that by all 
means.


always good to have a range of opinions) however please present a D form 

all these other languages (like D has done) why not dig up the original 

getting a bit boring).

BTW you do know that it's most likely that no big changes will make D 
1.0 however they will have some say in D 2.0.  However the bare metal 
stuff will not change.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Feb 22 2004
parent Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 BTW you do know that it's most likely that no big changes will make D 
 1.0 however they will have some say in D 2.0.  However the bare metal 
 stuff will not change.


I would like to believe that this is wrong. That is, additional features 
would probably not get in, they are planned for D 2.0. However, changes 
to the basic language have to be done *NOW*, if at all, because we 
wouldn't want to break compatibility once 1.0 is out.

However, i'd say the language groundwork is very good as it is, and you 
need *very*, *very* compelling reasons to change them now. Almost every 
aspect has been discussed for a few times, and a thin agreement between 
various members of community with their different views and Walter has 
been reached. It has never been easy to convince Walter, but i'd say 
it's good since he is acting from his belief in how things would be 
right, and not because someone told him that he/we "need" something.

To SpookyET: no, we are not hostile. But your argumend that "there is 
only one D compiler" doesn't count. The thing you suggest here poses a 
significant restriction on the toolchain. In particular, it does not 
comply to the restrictions of GCC, which is to be the next target, since 
  Windows is not enough to conquer the world. In future, other operating 
systems will become increasingly more important. Just look at the amount 
of Linux support done by IBM and some other major companies! BTW, who 
says D can't have classes in DLLs? ;) It just needs some source to 
reference them.

-eye
Feb 22 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Jeroen van Bemmel" <someone somewhere.com> writes:
You are very welcome to post suggestions for features. It would be nice if

it, so it's cool stuff".
The latter is _not_ a valid argument, and may indeed generate somewhat
allergic reactions in this group. Nothing personal, though

"SpookyET" <not4_u hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:opr3r4kjdx1s9n15 saturn...


 And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then
 yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that
 wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and
 under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is
 why they support classes.

 -- 
 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 22 2004
parent Roel Mathys <roel.mathys yucom.be> writes:
Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

 You are very welcome to post suggestions for features. It would be nice if

 it, so it's cool stuff".
 The latter is _not_ a valid argument, and may indeed generate somewhat
 allergic reactions in this group. Nothing personal, though
 



if all languages had all the same features implemented in the same way ...

:-)

bye,
roel
Feb 22 2004