Why is D unpopular? (page 56)

On 14/05/2022 6:44 AM, Walter Bright wrote: > cpp and cl all have the ability to emit all the macro definitions to stdout at the end of a run. (I intend to add it to sppn.) The idea is to intercept that output, look for #define patterns we can deal with, and deal with them. I must admit, that would have been some good information to have a year ago.

On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 01:42:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

I spoke with Atila a year ago on his excellent dpp. He handles the metaprogramming macros with a handbuilt translation of them. This works, but has to be constantly tuned. The lack of a general solution was what I was referring to.

Just extend D so that it accepts C code, then macro expansion will work. You are 90% there already.

Or rather, extend C so that it accepts D code.

So when you expand $MACRONAME(param) you inject a C-context that accepts D mixed in.

Should work 99.9% of the time. That is good enough, now you only have to manually deal with 1 in 1000. 90% is not good enough, as that means dealing manually with 1 in 10...

I had a similar idea very early on. Since the compiler understands the difference between a D and C scope, it could mix them. But I think there will be issues surrounding it. It won't work in a lot of cases. Adam's mixinC idea is much more likely to "just work" in all cases that I think that is the direction we ought to be going in.

May 14, 2022

Re: Why is D unpopular?

Posted by Ola Fosheim Grøstad
in reply to Ola Fosheim Grøstad

Permalink

Ola Fosheim Grøstad

Posted in reply to Ola Fosheim Grøstad

Permalink

On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 05:58:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 05:45:03 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:

Adam's mixinC idea is much more likely to "just work" in all cases that I think that is the direction we ought to be going in.

What will it look like in macro intensive code? If you end up writing C then the point is lost. What do you do with macros that expand function signatures followed by a body?

The only solution that can work in most cases is to align D more with C (or rather the oppsite) and reflect that in the AST.

You need to do the macro expansion in the lexer, then inject C/D context switch tokens used by the parser, then you inject C/D AST nodes if there are semantic differences, or annotate AST nodes with the differences. That way you can have a C signature followed by a D body.

Anything short of this is a waste of time IMHO.

The last thing the language needs is clunky interop.

On 03/11/2021 7:42 PM, mw wrote: > -- apache-thrift-d, LDC has build failure, because this bug (logged for 4 months now): > > https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22083 > > > -- D grpc client cannot talk to Python grpc server, because this bug (logged for a year now): > > https://github.com/huntlabs/grpc-dlang/issues/15 > > > BTW, apache-thrift and grpc are the most important two rpc frameworks used in the industry. #dbugfix

Forums