On Sunday, August 12, 2012 23:21:48 Walter Bright wrote: > On 8/12/2012 10:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > Even still, it's a far cry to compare ditching 16-bit with > > (effectively) shunning 32-bit. Yes, 64-bit is bocoming more and more > > important, and yes, 32-bit is becoming less and less important, but I > > still think you're very much jumping the gun here. > > We'll see. It has already happened on OSX.
OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about. While D is primarily going to be used for writing new programs (and therefore can choose to be 64-bit), it's a huge impediment to adding D into an existing code base for it not be able to link with Microsoft's 32-bit linker. How much that will ultimately matter, I don't know, but I think that it's pretty much a guarante that we're losing quite a bit in the short term by not having compatability with 32-bit Microsoft C/C+ on Windows. - Jonathan M Davis
