Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhh__ | Hacker News Reader

D has fairly extensive windows API support, and the usual PE gubbins. Worth taking a look at

Rust has had that for a long time as well. This is first-party support from Microsoft for Rust in contrast to community supported options like in D.

Link: https://wiki.dlang.org/D_for_Win32

Ada has something similar: https://github.com/AdaCore/win32ada

Sorry, I had to look up "gubbins":

British : fish parings or refuse broadly : any bits and pieces; gadgets, gadgetry the gubbins for changing a tire all the navigational gubbins

I wasn't aware of the dictionary definition :)

As the GP used it, it means "and what not", "and such like" etc.

Are these D bindings relevant to Rust developers? Or asked another way, is there some reason that the D bindings would be better to use than these native ones in Rust?

When I am writing or choosing (or bindings to) an API I always go and look at other languages (especially what the functional people do) to avoid repeating non-obvious mistakes and seeing where the impedance mismatches are.

Most recently, I've been playing with eBPF on Linux: The system call API is terse and pretty impenetrable, whereas the high-level APIs either mean writing gadgets in C with a nearly-blind debugging experience or relying on a library to retain the power of the featureset the kernel exposes.

This is the same stuff like julia community is doing. Spam language in every Python/R related topic (D guys target Nim/Rust)

And what do you call this: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=25823541&goto=threads%...

Correcting false statement?

Ah that's true in spirit, but it wasn't entirely false.

It's hackernews not rustnews, though.

Yes but the topic of discussion is rust here. D is awesome, but we are talking about the windows bindings for rust being “just good enough”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com