Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
You already have better D1.
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
Replacing unsupported D1 with unfinished D2 does not seem to me like good idea for language. I like D, and I wish to learn it and use it. But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it. High activity in the project to me does not look like sign of good support, more like unstable and buggy implementation. Maybe problem is in implementation language you want to replace? I guess, best test for language is compiler bootstrapping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29 IMHO, if you want million of users, at least no new feature should be added before number of issues and bug fixes stabilize to about one per month Thanks On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:27:01 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:38:47 + ddj via Digitalmars-d wrote: You already have better D1. as D2 wasn't created from the scratch, it was easier to reuse already written c++ code. there is no big difference in having D2 compiler written in c++ or in D1, both of them are not D2. DMD c++ is very close to "restricted c with classes" with banned STL, templates, multiple inheritance and so on. so it doesn't really matters. besides, having it written in D1 means that D1 compiler must be supported all this time, making devs effectively support TWO D versions instead of one. and by using c++ devs can "outsource" c++ support to another teams. ;-)
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
But then you miss all great features of D, all protection from bugs that D offers, like contracts and tests! Initial saving time cost more in long term On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:19:19 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: On 14/12/2014 12:38 a.m., ddj wrote: You already have better D1. The usage of c++ for dmd front end is the original language for it. Aka it would be rather hard to write a front end for D without a D compiler. Its currently being ported over to D. As for why it wasn't changed over when D2 started. Probably was seen as too much work at the time.
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
nobody forces you to use current developement versions. stick with the version of your choice (2.066 for example), that's all. Unfortunately it is unclear to me how many current bugs/issues are related to stable version. On another side, I do not like to use stable but crippled version not all D programmers wants "millon of users". i, for example, want a language which will be great for me, not for "million of users". that's why i think that D developement is very slow, "don't break the existing code" is overrated and c++ interoperbility is on the bottom of the list. but this is my own opinion, and i'm not even a major contributor. what i want to say is that D community consists of many groups with different visions, so it's hard to say what "we" exactly want. ;-) I've seen many YouTube videos about D and as far a I can remember "million users" is at least Walter&Andre's wish. That is maybe good only for the Amazon books? :) AFAIK c++ binary interoperability is very difficult problem due to different c++ compiler implementations. Thanks
Re: D3
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 20:21:51 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 12/8/14, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: It seems that D3 is already available: https://github.com/mbostock/d3 Guess we'll just have to skip a number and call the next D - D4. :) How about D+ (v1 v2 etc) ? Only one plus, so D++ can be reserved for the next major version :)
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
Unfortunately it is unclear to me how many current bugs/issues are related to stable version. On another side, I do not like to use stable but crippled version there are some fixes that are going to 2.066, and there is the plan to eventually release 2.066.1 (already here), 2.066.2, etc. with those fixes incorporated. so it should be fairly good to just stick with 2.066 and upgrade it when new minor version released, if you don't need that shiny new features (and bugs ;-). Thanks
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote: But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it. That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well? Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer.
Re: Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?
On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 00:58:29 UTC, uri wrote: On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 16:44:09 UTC, ddj wrote: On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote: But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it. That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well? Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer. As Mike said, look at the bug tracker history for these projects. Even with all those stable releases there were always lots of open bugs and today in GCC 4.9 there are issues: http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html We use GCC 4.8 at my work where we develop class II and class III health-care devices - A life support system is class III...how well do you trust GCC? :-). Joking aside we design for failure and have a 4 year verification process that weeds out critical bugs in our code and the compiler. Cheers, uri Actually, I think OSS too often has poor quality code. New features are continuously and unnecessary added, often breaking "stable" code. With exception of academic projects, I guess. Long verification process is exactly what I wish to prevent. While debugging my code, last thing I want to find is compiler bug. Currently I'm pleased with C# contracts, static checker, nunit, code (and branch!) coverage, pex .. and I wish to repeat that experience with D at higher execution speed. On OSS IDE like Sharp/Mono Develop. Thanks
