On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 17:10:01 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 17:04:10 UTC, Jason King wrote:
And how many of those are claiming to be a systems programming
language?
I have no problems with an unstable ABI, what I have a problem
is with
claiming to be a systems programming language AND not having a
stable ABI.
You realistically cannot have both — it seems like D is trying
to have it’s
cake and eat it too and I’m just pointing out that it’s going
to lead to
sadness. If there are no plans to ever have a stable ABI,
that’s fine (may
even be good for the long term usage of the language), just
drop the whole
systems programming language bit and focus more on application
level, but
I’ve not really seen any recognition of that.
From that point of view, C++ and Ada aren't system programming
languages.
Exactly. Maybe I have holes in my memory, but I can't remember
anything on "final C++ ABI standard". In fact I can even recall
something like this - "by not doing so(ABI freeze, I mean) we are
able to stay in touch with newer hardware"
