On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 04:15:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for
your company who was trialing D?
Because I do not remember once in that time period of any
one saying this.
Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help
companies, even flying to them on his own dime.
If you want to be treated special, we need to have a reason
for you to be treated special, otherwise you're just like
everybody else complaining without giving back.
We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give
back. This is the *entire* point.
D claims to be "Industry Proven and Ready" but we have to
submit PRs or get special treatment from Walter to use it
effectively? Sorry, but this is why many feel that D is
still just a hobby project.
We are an organisation trying to get work done. D was a
potential replacement of our existing C++/Python tool chain.
Unfortunately it *requires* us to give back, which as I
stated is not our business. Our business is the development
of medical devices and supporting application software, not
compiler or language development.
You just said the magic word, medical.
D was never an appropriate fit here.
dmd's backend has been for thirty years (or so) been up to
recently licensed so that you may not use it for this
purpose. Nothing has changed here.
I have no idea what you're talking about now.
What has the backend license got to do with medical?
The code generation capabilities of dmd has not been certified
for medical usage.
In essence, if it generated bad code, kills somebody, your the
one at fault, even if the source is fine. You would end up
begging to settle out of court.
It is my understanding that medical software manufacturers pay
for their compilers already certified. So that suggests to me
that you're not exactly life threatening but I would still
caution you away from D even if that bit is just my own opinion.
No, compilers do not need to be certified for class B or class C
software. These are the two highest safety classes for medical
SW. Beyond class C SW is not allowed, e.g. safety critical
interlocks such as the big red button to shut off a radiation
dose or stop a robotic system.
Compilers are are treated as SOUP (Software of Unknown
Provenance), i.e. a black box. Risk analysis leads to risk
control measures that in turn ensure people don't die and this is
done at the system and component level, not the codegen level.
Verification is performed to ensure the system implements the
requirements correctly, and subsequently the risk control
measures. Not all requirements are risk control measures, but all
requirements must be verified as correct.
Cheers,
Norm