Mike Parker wrote:
On 11/18/2010 7:51 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
In the short term I don't think that going D2 only is really an option
for me, so how feasible it is to keep the code base compatible to both
D1 and D2?
I know that one can define some templates (for example Const(T),....),
and maybe use mixins, but how much uglier does the code become as result?
I choose D to have cleaner code, I am not interested in loosing all that
just to be D1 and D2, then I prefer to wait, and convert everything at
once.
In maintaining Derelict, which is nothing more than a simple collection
of bindings to C libraries, I have had headaches keeping compatibility
between D1/D2. It's nothing that has been difficult to solve, just ugly.
If something as simple as a C-binding is uglified, I cringe at the
thought of maintaining something more complex. It's going to get very
ugly, very quickly. My attitude is that any future D projects I make
available will be D2 only. I just don't think it's worth being
compatible with both versions from a code maintenance perspective.
wxD had the same experience, with supporting Phobos/Tango and D1/D2.
It's "possible", but leads to ugly/duplicated code and best avoided...
For a C/C++-binding it's doable with liberal amounts of version(Tango)
and version(D_Version2) but that quickly gets hideous and in the way.
--anders
PS. Adding three compilers and three build systems, it just exploded.
It made even the two OS and the three UI look simple in comparison.
OS: Windows, Unix (linux, darwin)
UI: __WXMSW__, __WXGTK__, __WXMAC__
