On Saturday, 4 August 2018 at 12:18:21 UTC, tide wrote:
On Saturday, 4 August 2018 at 01:45:44 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Friday, 3 August 2018 at 22:55:51 UTC, Rubn wrote:
The difference is they would have to rework their existing
code. If you are writing D source code bindings for your
code, then you are essentially writing new code. You don't
have to worry about backwards compatibility.
Why would you write bindings if the computer can do it for
you, better, faster and consistently?
With the current tools the ones that generate D files to be
used aren't very good. They evaluate Macros based on the
current implementation, so if there's a define MACHINE_X86 or
MACHINE_x64, those macro and #if's will be evaluated based on
the current system running the tool instead of generating
equivalent version() statements.
If the D files are to be checked in, then yes, that'd be a
problem. If they're not, as is the case with dpp, then... that's
actually what you want.
dpp: I fought the preprocessor and the preprocessor won.
It would be, but I don't think it'll ever be 100% and will
require manual intervention.
If manual intervention is required, dpp has failed. Some problems
will be tricky, especially where the preprocessor is concerned.
But a lot of real-life production code works.
