On Sunday, 27 October 2013 at 11:49:38 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> If we want to mention shared library support in the release notes, I think we really ought to make clear (with a big red warning) that D doesn't make any guarantees about ABI stability right now.

Also, there is the big unresolved topic of symbol visibility, see e.g. http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP45 and the associated discussion.

I'm afraid we will repeat C++'s mistakes here and shoot ourselves in the foot big time if we keep symbols visible (i.e. exported from shared libraries) by default. The impact of that on (link time) optimization opportunities and, for big libraries, load times is absolutely non-negligible.

David

On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 05:45:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was curious how our fledgling wrap and unwrap routines compare with Go's duck typing - similarities, distinctions, performance. Please share any thoughts, thanks!
>
> Andrei

It may have been really good if it worked with structs and could have been decently optimized away by compiler. Right now though similar built-in language implementation in Rust (I don't know how it is in go but assume similarity) is totally superior. Key point of this feature for me is being able to adapt existing non-polymorphic duck-typed aggregates (structs) to some external polymorphic binary interfaces. `wrap` does not seem to help here.

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 08:09:13 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Also, is it correct that Linux dynamic library support is really starting with this release? There was some before but not quite usable.

It was there in 2.063, but we explicitly decided not to announce it due to how alpha it was. So, it makes some sense to say that it's new in this release, though I don't know how ready it is even now. I haven't been paying a lot of attention, but it's my impression from what I've read that it still needs a lot of work. I expect that it's plenty ready for folks to play around with, but if it's anyone's expectation that it's finished as-is, then I expect that they'll be in for a rude surprise, and I don't know how many of those changes risk being non-backwards compatible. Martin would really be the one to ask about all that though, since he's the one doing most of the work. But we are getting there, regardless of whether it's really ready yet in this release or not.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 31/10/13 05:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 08:09:13 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Also, is it correct that Linux dynamic library support is really
>> starting with this release? There was some before but not quite usable.
>
> It was there in 2.063, but we explicitly decided not to announce it due to how
> alpha it was. So, it makes some sense to say that it's new in this release,
> though I don't know how ready it is even now.

How ready is it vis-à-vis other compilers?  I remember reading that the dynamic library support was DMD-only.