On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:51:21 +0000 Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >> Come on, that is not even a half decent analogy. > > it is. you can't see any uses of (semi)compiled module files > > (and i > > can; it's essential for component framework, for example). i > > can't see > > any uses of compiled binaries (i don't need that in component > > framework). > > Actually I asked in this thread what the benefits are and the > only one that come up was improved compilation speed due to > caching of the lexing/parsing stage. > > If you think it is a good idea for a component framework, would > you please explain how? Honest question. the core of the component framework a-la BlackBox Component Builder is dynamic module system. this requires dynamic linker, and the linker must know alot about framework internals to be fast and usable. with precompiled modules which keeps symbolic information and ASTs for templates such linker can be written as independend module. you don't need to add hacks to runtime, to care about correct .so building and loading order and so on. it's too long to explain in NG post. if you really interested you can take a look at BlackBox Component Builder itself, it's open-source. having ".sym" and ".cod" files are necessary to make such system usable. D has a great foundation to build component framework a-la BCB. there are *no* competitors for D here, and having such system can boost D popularity to the skies. BCB failed due to two strategic errors: choosing Component Pascal as the system language (CP is great language, but the reality is that you cannot with with "pascal") and resisting to open-source the system until it was too late. with "AST-companions" D is in position to occupy that niche. D is c-like, D has great metaprogramming abilities, D is open-source. it's doomed to win.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature