On 11/2/2014 11:45 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 2 November 2014 04:15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
Why would templates make you nervous? They're not C++ templates!
What do you mean? How are D templates any different than C++ templates
in a practical sense?
They're much more straightforward to use, syntactically and semantically.
I want a binary lib to be a binary lib. I don't think it's good form
for the lowest level library in the language ecosystem to depend on
templates (ie, client-side code generation).
What's the problem with that?
This is the fundamental lib that will be present in every D
application there is. If it is not a binary lib, then it can't be
updated.
Have you ever looked at the C openssl.lib? The .h files with it are loaded with
metaprogramming done with C macros. Yet I've never heard anyone complain about
it. C .h files for DLLs are typically stuffed with C macros.
Consider performance improvements are made to druntime, which every
application should enjoy. If the code is templates, then the old
version at time of compiling is embedded into existing client
software, the update will have no effect unless the client software is
rebuilt.
More important, what about security fixes in druntime... imagine a
critical security problem in druntime (I bet there's lots!); if we
can't update druntime, then *every* D application is an exploit. Very
shaky foundation for an ecosystem...
The defense presents openssl as Exhibit A!
(The templates really only present the interface to the dll, not the guts of
it.)
druntime is a fundamental ecosystem library. It should be properly
semantically version-ed, and particularly for security reasons, I
think this should be taken very very seriously.
openssl!!!
BTW, you should know that if a template is instantiated by the library itself,
the compiler won't re-instantiate it and insert that in the calling code. It'll
just call the instantiated binary.
