On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at 04:59:11 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> People who are concerned about cross-language compatibility should be implementing C interfaces to their C++ libraries anyway. Yes, it's a nice, convenient feature to have, but ultimately there are more important things, IMO.

True. But i find myself with like 10+Gb of c++ sources, are you suggesting that i should write C wrapper for all that code to use D? Or maby you suggesting that i have to make all my (hundreds) collegs write C wrappers for all new code? I really just trying to start D community in company i work, and there is no way to do it without nice integration with old codebase.

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at 04:59:11 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> People who are concerned about cross-language compatibility should be implementing C interfaces to their C++ libraries anyway. Yes, it's a nice, convenient feature to have, but ultimately there are more important things, IMO.

I thought it was a stated goal of D to have C++ interoperability for the same compiler suite?
E.g. dmd/dmc++, g++/gdc, ldc/clang…

V Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:57:15 +0000
"Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>"@puremagic.com napsáno:

> On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at 04:59:11 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> > People who are concerned about cross-language compatibility should be implementing C interfaces to their C++ libraries anyway. Yes, it's a nice, convenient feature to have, but ultimately there are more important things, IMO.
> 
> I thought it was a stated goal of D to have C++ interoperability
> for the same compiler suite?
> E.g. dmd/dmc++, g++/gdc, ldc/clang…

This would be awesome. But it would be much better if DMD has interoperability with g++ and/or clang too.

On 4/2/2014 7:30 PM, monnoroch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at 04:59:11 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> People who are concerned about cross-language compatibility should be
>> implementing C interfaces to their C++ libraries anyway. Yes, it's a
>> nice, convenient feature to have, but ultimately there are more
>> important things, IMO.
>
> True. But i find myself with like 10+Gb of c++ sources, are you
> suggesting that i should write C wrapper for all that code to use D? Or
> maby you suggesting that i have to make all my (hundreds) collegs write
> C wrappers for all new code? I really just trying to start D community
> in company i work, and there is no way to do it without nice integration
> with old codebase.

What I'm suggesting is that there are a lot of people with a lot of different priorities and still a lot of work to be done just to get the core language features where they need to be. D already has interop with C and that's been extremely important. While I think it would be fantastic to have fully-functional C++ interop so that one could just drop a D module into a project and take off, I wouldn't expect that to be a major priority at this time.

"DanielKozák"  wrote in message news:mailman.36.1396437697.19942.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> > I thought it was a stated goal of D to have C++ interoperability
> > for the same compiler suite?
> > E.g. dmd/dmc++, g++/gdc, ldc/clang…
>
> This would be awesome. But it would be much better if DMD has
> interoperability with g++ and/or clang too.

It does, on non-windows platforms, although C++ interoperability is closer to a nice-to-have than a 'stated goal'.