On 12/17/2012 5:28 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Using PIMPL only helps if you're trying to hide implementation details of a struct or class. Anything that requires CTFE is out of the question. Templates are out of the question (this was also true with C++). This reduces the incentive to adopt D, since they might as well just stick with C++. We lose.
I've never seen any closed-source companies reticent about using C++ because of obfuscation issues, which are the same as for D, so I do not see this as a problem.
If we implement a way of "hiding" implementation details that *allows* CTFE and templates (and thus one up the C++ situation), this will create a stronger incentive for D adoption. It doesn't matter if it's not hard to "unhide" the implementation;
Yes, it does, because we would be lying if we were pretending this was an effective solution.
we don't lose anything (having no way to hide implementation is what we already have), plus it increases our chances of adoption -- esp. by enterprises, who are generally the kind of people who even care about this issue in the first place, and who are the people we *want* to attract. Sounds like a win to me.
We'd lose credibility with them, as people will laugh at us over this.
But then again, even if we never do this, it makes no difference to *me* -- the current situation is good enough for *me*. The question is whether or not we want to D to be better received by enterprises.
As I said, C++ is well received by enterprises. This is not an issue.
