On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:40:33 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
[...]
Can we treat it more like an interpreted language instead?
An interpreted language would interpret the code on the target
system at runtime. This is not what D does, so we can't really
treat it like we treat Python (where it is possible no neatly
separate Python modules into separate packages - transitions
triggering rebuild cascades only exist when we jump to the next
major CPython version, which is something distributions are well
prepared for. Transitions are only an issue if they happen
constantly).
At time, D is treated like C++, since it has much of the same
challenges and we know how to deal with C++ - additionally to
C++, D unfortunately though also has the unique issues outlined
above, which complicate things.
I also want to stress that having a single C++ library like Boost
compiled into stuff and rolling dependency transitions when its
API/ABI changes with a major release is less of a problem than
having the entire language give zero stability and
interoperability guarantees on anything that is compiled with it.
