digitalmars.D - DDL should become official part of DMD
- BLS (2/2) Sep 04 2009 c topic.. what do you think ?
- JPF (14/17) Sep 05 2009 I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but
- BLS (8/26) Sep 06 2009 I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone.
- Tim_M (4/25) Sep 06 2009 I didn't want to say much but I actually would like this a lot.
- Jesse Phillips (3/4) Sep 07 2009 I can see the benefits from this, doesn't silence on these boards
- Christopher Wright (3/24) Sep 08 2009 DDL showed signs of offering a proper reflection library. I'm drooling a...
- teo (2/23) Sep 11 2009 I'm all for it.
c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".
Sep 04 2009
BLS wrote:c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but as a developer / user I would really like it: It's needed to implement stuff like addins in a convenient way. And it would be great if we could finally use statically loaded shared libraries instead of static compilation of everything (I guess that needs compiler integration, so it's a good reason to include DDL with dmd ;-)). Also, if you look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dll.html#Dcode the current way to do D DLLs for use with D code is not very developer friendly. Exporting flat functions like getMyClass just doesn't feel right. Now compare that with DDLs features: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/wiki/AboutDDL .DDL clearly wins. By the way, I guess most of you know that already, but http://h3.team0xf.com/devlog/?p=12 has an updated version of DDL with a new linker.
Sep 05 2009
JPF wrote:BLS wrote:I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone. License ????? The compiler deps stuff is coming out of the same developer house... ...without trouble.. ... now DMD comes along with such a license MIX nobody really understands but W. insist that everything else has to be public domain. That stinks !!!!c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but as a developer / user I would really like it: It's needed to implement stuff like addins in a convenient way. And it would be great if we could finally use statically loaded shared libraries instead of static compilation of everything (I guess that needs compiler integration, so it's a good reason to include DDL with dmd ;-)). Also, if you look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dll.html#Dcode the current way to do D DLLs for use with D code is not very developer friendly. Exporting flat functions like getMyClass just doesn't feel right. Now compare that with DDLs features: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/wiki/AboutDDL .DDL clearly wins. By the way, I guess most of you know that already, but http://h3.team0xf.com/devlog/?p=12 has an updated version of DDL with a new linker.
Sep 06 2009
Tim_M <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> BLS Wrote:JPF wrote:I didn't want to say much but I actually would like this a lot. I can't see how this will negatively effect anything else unlike language features so it is kind of on the level of the patch for build tools integrated in 2.031 IIRC. I guess if someone other than Walter could do the development then he probably wouldn't mind applying the patches.BLS wrote:I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone.c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but as a developer / user I would really like it: It's needed to implement stuff like addins in a convenient way. And it would be great if we could finally use statically loaded shared libraries instead of static compilation of everything (I guess that needs compiler integration, so it's a good reason to include DDL with dmd ;-)). Also, if you look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dll.html#Dcode the current way to do D DLLs for use with D code is not very developer friendly. Exporting flat functions like getMyClass just doesn't feel right. Now compare that with DDLs features: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/wiki/AboutDDL .DDL clearly wins. By the way, I guess most of you know that already, but http://h3.team0xf.com/devlog/?p=12 has an updated version of DDL with a new linker.
Sep 06 2009
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:31:18 +0200, BLS wrote:I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone.I can see the benefits from this, doesn't silence on these boards generally mean agreement? :)
Sep 07 2009
BLS wrote:JPF wrote:DDL showed signs of offering a proper reflection library. I'm drooling a bit over the possibility.BLS wrote:I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone.c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but as a developer / user I would really like it: It's needed to implement stuff like addins in a convenient way. And it would be great if we could finally use statically loaded shared libraries instead of static compilation of everything (I guess that needs compiler integration, so it's a good reason to include DDL with dmd ;-)). Also, if you look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dll.html#Dcode the current way to do D DLLs for use with D code is not very developer friendly. Exporting flat functions like getMyClass just doesn't feel right. Now compare that with DDLs features: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/wiki/AboutDDL .DDL clearly wins. By the way, I guess most of you know that already, but http://h3.team0xf.com/devlog/?p=12 has an updated version of DDL with a new linker.
Sep 08 2009
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:31:18 +0200, BLS wrote:JPF wrote:I'm all for it.BLS wrote:I can hear you , but it seems that we are pretty alone. License ?????c topic.. what do you think ? IMO : this could be a D "killer feature".I don't know how complicated that would be (licensing issues, ...), but as a developer / user I would really like it: It's needed to implement stuff like addins in a convenient way. And it would be great if we could finally use statically loaded shared libraries instead of static compilation of everything (I guess that needs compiler integration, so it's a good reason to include DDL with dmd ;-)). Also, if you look at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dll.html#Dcode the current way to do D DLLs for use with D code is not very developer friendly. Exporting flat functions like getMyClass just doesn't feel right. Now compare that with DDLs features: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/wiki/AboutDDL .DDL clearly wins. By the way, I guess most of you know that already, but http://h3.team0xf.com/devlog/?p=12 has an updated version of DDL with a new linker.
Sep 11 2009