On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 13:23:20 UTC, Jason King wrote:
wanted to fix a problem with the underlying system. Trying to
build
something on top of an unstable ABI is building your
foundations on sand.
All I’m saying is if no attention is going to be paid to this
(it doesn’t mean you can’t ch
On May 26, 2017 at 12:11:09 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d (digitalmars-d@puremagic.com) wrote:
On 05/25/2017 01:04 PM, Jason King via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> I have no problems with an unstable ABI, what I have a problem is with
> claiming to be a systems programming language A
On 05/25/2017 01:04 PM, Jason King via Digitalmars-d wrote:
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
Why?
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 pro
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 16:16:19 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
Could someone please explain why people talk always of ABI
compatibilty while what is described would imo better
classified as API compatibilty.
Here the function mangle is involved. Mangles/Names are part of
the ABI in D spec
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 realistica
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
cak
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 16:16:19 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 14:36:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[...]
Could someone please explain why people talk always of ABI
compatibilty while what is described would imo better
classified as API compatibilty. ABI is the
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:36:38 UTC, Jason King wrote:
Yes it is a lot of work, which I strongly suspect is a big
reason why C still reigns supreme at the systems level —
because it does have a stable ABI which solves a lot of
headaches from a systems point of view (obviously momentum and
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:36:38 UTC, Jason King wrote:
Yes it is a lot of work, which I strongly suspect is a big
reason why C still reigns supreme at the systems level —
because it does have a stable ABI which solves a lot of
headaches from a systems point of view (obviously momentum and
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 14:36:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 13:23:57 Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 10:42:44 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> Static libraries that are
> - compiled with dmd 2.074 (maybe previous versions too)
> - call format()
On 5/25/17 11:02 AM, Jason King via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a systems
programming language, less so for application focused stuff. I would
hope it’s at least an eventual goal even if it’s not quite the case today.
Two large reasons why
Yes it is a lot of work, which I strongly suspect is a big reason why C
still reigns supreme at the systems level — because it does have a stable
ABI which solves a lot of headaches from a systems point of view (obviously
momentum and history are also very big reasons).
If that’s the direction D w
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 15:02:00 UTC, Jason King wrote:
That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a
systems programming language, less so for application focused
stuff. I would hope it’s at least an eventual goal even if
it’s not quite the case today.
The reason we don
On 25/05/2017 4:02 PM, Jason King via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a systems
programming language, less so for application focused stuff. I would
hope it’s at least an eventual goal even if it’s not quite the case today.
You would be fighti
That’s a fairly important requirement if it’s supposed to be a systems
programming language, less so for application focused stuff. I would hope
it’s at least an eventual goal even if it’s not quite the case today.
On May 25, 2017 at 8:26:04 AM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d (
digitalmars-d@puremagic
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 13:23:57 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 10:42:44 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> > Static libraries that are
> > - compiled with dmd 2.074 (maybe previous versions too)
> > - call format() in their API
> >
> > will be responsible for strange errors w
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 10:42:44 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Static libraries that are
- compiled with dmd 2.074 (maybe previous versions too)
- call format() in their API
will be responsible for strange errors when used by programs
compiled with dmd 2.075. People will see their software raising
Static libraries that are
- compiled with dmd 2.074 (maybe previous versions too)
- call format() in their API
will be responsible for strange errors when used by programs
compiled with dmd 2.075. People will see their software raising a
FormatException (orphan argument) for no reason. When the
19 matches
Mail list logo
