On 8/12/2012 11:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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.
I fully understand that is why they are a first mover in leaving 32 bits behind.
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.
64 bits is far more important. We don't have arrows for every target, we have to
pick the juiciest ones.
