"Kapps" <opantm2+s...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nnqtlpjqwdnzuwiqc...@forum.dlang.org... > On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 17:20:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 3/21/2012 7:23 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >>> But, is import unlikely success, or is this just a >>> leftover feeling from my massive bias in the early >>> days? I have to say it is my bias, since everyone >>> else uses import and they all know it is good. >> >> I knew import would be good :-) >> >> It's because I've used languages before with an import, and as a compiler >> guy, I knew what a kludge #include is. The preprocessor in C/C++ is a >> crutch to make up for deficiencies in the language. > > On the topic of import, mixin imports are something that I believe will > eventually become a great deal more popular than they are today. First, > there's the advantage of being able to use a language/syntax more > appropriate for the task at hand. For example, for things that output html > you could just import mixin a raw html file. But the real advantage is > that you can still do compile-time processing on this. Plug in an xml > parser, or something like pegged, and you can now extend Html and generate > D code for it. For example, if you have something like runat="server" on > an element, just like in ASP.net you could create a serverside element for > this and manipulate it. Because you know exactly which parts are static > and which are dynamic, you could (at compile time) create buffers > containing the static portions to prevent having to copy things many > times. Unlike other languages, there would be no performance hit to doing > this because it's all done at compile time. This is just one example. > Another one would be automatically creating bindings for a scripting > language, or even automatically creating bindings for a C header file.
Oh yea, definitely. I'm already using HTML mixin imports for the little bit of sever-side web stuff I've started playing around with in D.
