3 ms·
> But I think it suffers from the same fatal flaw that D does: you have to semi-manually translate C headers that you want to use. Like D, it provides an automa
by dom96 13y ago
> But I think it suffers from the same fatal flaw that D does: you have to semi-manually translate C headers that you want to use. Like D, it provides an automated tool to help, but the translated headers will inevitably lag their original counterparts.
I can't think of a better alternative. Can you suggest one? The fact that Nimrod compiles to C already is a huge plus, it makes wrapping C code very easy.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- stonemetal 13y agoIf the language has "A real package system" why not allow for packages written in other languages? If a C build system can look at a .h and a .lib and figure out what symbols are exported and use them then I seen no reason why a compiler for xyz could not also do that. If you reused OSS projects like Clang it may not even be a monumental effort.