Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Pelle M�nsson <pelle.mans...@gmail.com> wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:14:54 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
[snip]
as opposed to the
Java way of having to use 5 different classes just to read in a file
line by line in the default character encoding.
That's a library issue. Has nothing to do with the language.
I agree completely, but for all practical purposes basic parts of the
standard
library that are used by almost everyone are part of the language. �Heck,
in many
languages (D being one of them) you can't even write a canonical hello
world
program w/o the standard lib.
Sure you can!
extern (C) int puts(char *);
void main() {
� �puts("Hello world!\0".dup.ptr);
}
I think he means that the GC from the standard lib will still be there
to perform that .dup for you.
(You don't need the dup though, btw, string literals are null
terminated and can be passed to C funcs as-is).
Even without that, the GC doesn't get eliminated from executables just
because you don't use it.
There's still some hidden calls to gc init routines that go into any D exe.
--bb
Fair enough. :) I do think I need the dup, though, since the literal is
immutable otherwise.
I lean more towards that the standard libs are a core part of the
language anyway, and the possibility of writing your own simplifications
doesn't help the usefulness of the language.
