On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:07:02 -0400, BCS <n...@anon.com> wrote:
Hello Steven,
Probably because Java doesn't use source code as imports. It is one
flaw of D that I really wish could be fixed.
Here we go again! I don't (and won't, so don't try explaining it)
understand why people think file=module is a flaw, I LIKE the idea.
The flaw isn't that file=module. the flaw is that
uncompiled-file=import. When you are importing source files, and then
linking them to object files that could have been compiled from different
sources, you run the risk of hard-to-find bugs, and weird crashes (and not
being able to detect cycles!). It is one of the things I didn't like
about source/header separation in C/C++. D gets one step closer by having
the implementation and header in one file, but you still are importing the
source file, which means you have to compile it during import just to
understand what it means.
If we were importing compiled files (or even generated files), then the
compiled file could have annotated the "static this" with the dependencies
it has...
I don't want to start another long thread on this, I understand Walter's
"I want to use standard linkers" position. But this is the explanation I
think for Java being able to succeed where D cannot.
-Steve
