Don wrote:
Travis Boucher wrote:
retard wrote:
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:03:46 -0700, Travis Boucher wrote:
The future of D to me is very uncertain. I see some very bright
possibilities in the embedded area and the web cluster area (these are
my 2 areas, so I can't speak on the scientific applications). However
the limited targets for the official DMD, and the adoption lag in gdc
(and possibly ldc) are issues that need to be addressed before I can
see
the language getting some of the real attention that it deserves.
Agreed, basically you would need to go the gdc/gcc route since e.g. arm/
mips backends on llvm aren't as mature and clearly digitalmars only
targets x86.
I hope sometime after the D2 specs are finalized, and dmd2 stablizes,
Walter decides to make the dmd backend Boost or MIT licensed (or
similar).
AFAIK, he can't. He doesn't own exclusive rights to it. The statement
that it's not guaranteed to work after Y2K is a Symantec requirement, it
definitely doesn't come from Walter!
Sadly thats even more reason to focus on non-digital mars compilers.
Personally I like the digital mars compiler, its relatively simple
(compared to the gcc code mess), but legacy symantec stuff could be a
bit of a bottleneck.
