On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 11:26:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/23/2015 3:22 AM, Abdulhaq wrote:
On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 10:53:47 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Yes, it's tied to clang++. It may not even work on all the
platforms we
support. But that's no matter for now.
When you say "for now", does that imply that at some time in
the future it may
matter, in which case isn't it better to get these issues
thrashed out now? Is
this a potential dead end?
We don't need a perfect solution immediately. We do need a
solution that's better than nothing, we can build on that as
required.
I actually agree (though I am nowhere near as well informed as
most others on this forum) that Calypso is the way to go, however
ISTM there are large implications that go with that decision. The
infrastructure that Calyspo depends on is not something, IMO,
that you "can build on as required" to address missing platforms,
for instance. Gazing into my crystal ball I'd say that 5 years
down the road there will be many D libraries with significant
dependencies on C++ (Calypso bound) to the extent that the great
unwashed will view D as a language that is only practicable on
platforms supported by clang++. For me that is fine, but I
suspect not fine for others. For instance, I would view Qt and
VTK as key bindings. Others will want numeric libraries etc. etc..
I should also point out that D doesn't have 'nothing' in terms of
alternatives, there exist other more traditional binding-based
technologies that could flourish with 'official' support. Since I
have a hand in one of those I should point out that I think
Calypso, if it does what I think it does, will work better in
terms of integration, speed etc. and from my personal perspective
is therefore better. My goal is to have Qt, VTK, linear algebra,
matrices etc., available for D (linux and Windows) and I'm not
fussed exactly how it is done.
