"Zz" <junkie@noware.com> wrote in message news:dp35ru$1vle$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In Stonnt Brook M2 the libs were generated from the DEF and lib and all the user needed was the lib and def to do any thing, the def module did not contain anything (just like D's interface but in a separate file with the option to include other def's).

The trouble with that is the usual trouble with interfaces - they necessarilly introduce an extra level of indirection to get at the methods/data. If there's no way around it, the language implementation is never going to attain the needed performance.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Zz" <junkie@noware.com> wrote in message news:dp35ru$1vle$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>In Stonnt Brook M2 the libs were generated from the DEF and lib and all the user needed was the lib and def to do any thing, the def module did not contain anything (just like D's interface but in a separate file with the option to include other def's).
> 
> 
> The trouble with that is the usual trouble with interfaces - they necessarilly introduce an extra level of indirection to get at the methods/data. If there's no way around it, the language implementation is never going to attain the needed performance. 
> 
> 
Hi Walter

You have a point about the extra level of indirection, SB M2 allowed one to put procedures into the DEF (interface file) and they would be inlined in case someone needed that. Just like C++ inline functions.

I guess it all depends on background, I introduced one of the people I work with to D (he has to re-write something small I wrote in D to C++) and at first glance the thing that he loved was that it didn't have header files (I wrote the whole thing in one file).

There is a new thread "Decoupling implementation from usage" that helped clear some things up for me.

All in all I've come to really like D and will continue using it.

Thanks
Zz

"Kris" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:dp76j5$1u9p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dp7459$1stn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "Kris" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:dp6onr$1m6u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Okay. I think there's an opportunity to clear this up via a few short questions. These refer back to the SearchEngine example posted previously (repeated below):
>>>
>>> a) The example provided, where the SearchFactory.di file was hand-crafted? Will usage of that "di" module operate correctly?
> Okay. And what about question (a) above, please?

It should work fine.