Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 24/05/2010 14:05, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Ah, ok, I've only used DMD windows so far, thus I wasn't aware of those problems. (in windows its fine) And I think the zip file installation is fine versus using an installer, in fact I even prefer it. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 24/05/2010 14:05, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Ah, ok, I've only used DMD windows so far, thus I wasn't aware of those problems. (in windows its fine) And I think the zip file installation is fine versus using an installer, in fact I even prefer it. Ditto. Windows installers always make me nervous -- you're never quite sure what they're going to do, and what problems they're about to cause.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/25/2010 10:38 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Good point. Who here knows what steps need be taken to create a repository? Andrei I haven't tried myself, someone has for the Tango side. It doesn't look to be too difficult: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/286 If you would like I could try to come up with a configuration file this week/weekend That would be awesome, thanks! Walter, it would be also great if you could contact the person who did the .deb file to also kindly ask for a 64-bit .deb. Thanks all, Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/26/2010 05:07 AM, Don wrote: Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 24/05/2010 14:05, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Ah, ok, I've only used DMD windows so far, thus I wasn't aware of those problems. (in windows its fine) And I think the zip file installation is fine versus using an installer, in fact I even prefer it. Ditto. Windows installers always make me nervous -- you're never quite sure what they're going to do, and what problems they're about to cause. Hmmm, that's quite a change of attitude since my Windows days. I remember I wouldn't look twice at an application that didn't come with an installer. Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 2010-05-25 20:00:44 -0400, retard r...@tard.com.invalid said: Because of the non-free license he is the only person who can fix this -- I can't officially redistribute a fixed .zip package or any other repackaged dmd. Well, there is a way: create something that automatically downloads, extract, and set the executable bits on the proper file. This is exactly what D for Xcode does. If anyone is interested, I've put the scripts it uses for that here: http://michelf.com/docs/dmd-install/ I expect they'll work fine on Linux, but you may want to change the DX_INSTALL_DIR variable in the dmd1download.sh and dmd2download.sh files (D for Xcode installs in /Library/Compilers). Feel free to adapt and redistribute the scripts as you like; they're available under GPL 2 or later, same as the rest of D for Xcode. -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 26/05/2010 14:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 05/26/2010 05:07 AM, Don wrote: Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 24/05/2010 14:05, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Ah, ok, I've only used DMD windows so far, thus I wasn't aware of those problems. (in windows its fine) And I think the zip file installation is fine versus using an installer, in fact I even prefer it. Ditto. Windows installers always make me nervous -- you're never quite sure what they're going to do, and what problems they're about to cause. Hmmm, that's quite a change of attitude since my Windows days. I remember I wouldn't look twice at an application that didn't come with an installer. Andrei I may not agree entirely with Don, because I my preference for zip files was referring to the DMD case only, its not a general preference, it depends on the application. I would say an installer makes sense when the application needs to do other OS tasks other than just extracting its files onto a folder, such as creating Program menu shortcuts, setting up file associations, configuring environment variables or OS services. Also if the application stores data or configuration in user home folders, or in the registry. Any of these reasons most likely merit an installer (and uninstaller). -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 26 de mayo a las 08:19 me escribiste: On 05/25/2010 10:38 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Good point. Who here knows what steps need be taken to create a repository? Andrei I haven't tried myself, someone has for the Tango side. It doesn't look to be too difficult: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/286 If you would like I could try to come up with a configuration file this week/weekend That would be awesome, thanks! Walter, it would be also great if you could contact the person who did the .deb file to also kindly ask for a 64-bit .deb. As Jesse Phillips said: DDebber will build packages for i386 and AMD64. The main difference is that the AMD64 package will depended on the required ia32 libraries which will not be pulled in with -force-architecture. http://dsource.org/projects/ddebber The goal is to give this program to Walter so he is able to build .deb packages and host them on digitalmars.com Maybe he can take a look at that. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Ever tried? Ever failed? - Try again! Fail better!
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
And I think the zip file installation is fine versus using an installer, in fact I even prefer it. Ditto. Windows installers always make me nervous -- you're never quite sure what they're going to do, and what problems they're about to cause. Hmmm, that's quite a change of attitude since my Windows days. I remember I wouldn't look twice at an application that didn't come with an installer. Andrei I too prefer the zip file approach. I guess what turned me to it was simplicity of installation (especially if you have limited rights), portability across machines, ease of removal, and it doesn't bloat your registry which, AFAIK, will still slow your machine down since it's read every time you launch a program. Though, if you package the compiler as a portable app (PortableApps.com), that would be cool too. You get the benefits of an installer and the installation is still unobtrusive. Casey
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Mon, 24 May 2010 17:45:01 +, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llu...@gmail.com)'s article dsimcha, el 24 de mayo a las 13:05 me escribiste: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. BTW, distributing a huge .zip with the binaries for all platforms is not ideal either. In Linux you have to make the binaries executables. The only straighforward option for Linux is the .deb, but it's only straightforward for Ubuntu 32-bits, anything else needs some (non-trivial) work. If packaging nightmares like this don't explain why Linux hasn't succeeded on the desktop, then nothing will. The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32- bit libraries have been installed. The Microsoft installer stuff doesn't work well either. Try running 64- bit installers on a 32-bit Windows system or the latest .NET expecting .msi files on Windows 95/98/ME or Windows NT4/2000.. now how does it handle package dependencies - the answer is it doesn't. A 32-bit .deb works in most (if not all) 32-bit Debian derivatives unless the package is expecting some Ubuntu related configuration. Your solution seems to be: because it's too complex to build packages for every distro, don't provide anything. Yay, nothing works.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
retard wrote: The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32- bit libraries have been installed. Hey retard, while I enjoy reading a lot of the controversy that you like to create on this NG, sorry, on this occasion I think you are being somewhat unfair towards one particular person here. My understanding is that .zip files are traditionally a DOS (originally PKZIP) then come Windows thing then come Unix available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29 Being so, .zip files do not inherently/traditionally support recording Unix file permissions such as +x within the archive. If such facilities exist today in Unix .zip utilities (and I am unaware of the same) these would have to be extensions over and above what .zip files are commonly understood to support given the DOS/PKZIP history of this file format. Recording of Unix file permissions in archives is traditionally achieved with .tar files (and compressed variants) as I am sure you are well aware. When downloading archive from the net, I look for .zip files if wanting to install on Windows and .tar or .tar.gz if wanting to install on Unixes. I imagine that most Unix-aware folks would do the same. In this instance I think you should be asking that archives be available in both .tar and .zip variants for the respective platforms and not accusing a certain somebody of being delinquent in not setting a +x flag on a file in a .zip file. Cheers Justin Johansson
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/24/2010 07:16 PM, eles wrote: == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei just type sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb where dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb is the name of the .deb file Thanks. Is there a way to make that directive automatic inside the .deb file? Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/24/2010 08:03 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei DDebber will build packages for i386 and AMD64. The main difference is that the AMD64 package will depended on the required ia32 libraries which will not be pulled in with -force-architecture. Just say'n Ok, it still isn't that simple because if you don't have the required packages then dmd will be left unconfigured since dpkg will not install dependencies. # apt-get -f should fix this. I think at the end of the day we need a link that people can click on and that's that. How can we make that work? Do we need a 64-bit .deb, or is it possible to automatically instruct the package manager (in the case of Ubuntu gdebi) to install it with dependencies and all? Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think at the end of the day we need a link that people can click on and that's that. How can we make that work? Do we need a 64-bit .deb, or is it possible to automatically instruct the package manager (in the case of Ubuntu gdebi) to install it with dependencies and all? Andrei Ubuntu (and family) is probably the only distro that you can expect gdebi to be installed on. And the only way to have it install the proper packages is to install a package with the required dependencies e.g. an AMD64 package. To really make many Linux users happy would be to provide a repository. Even Google doesn't provide a one-click install for their programs (I bring them up because they try very hard to be user friendly).
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/25/2010 09:22 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think at the end of the day we need a link that people can click on and that's that. How can we make that work? Do we need a 64-bit .deb, or is it possible to automatically instruct the package manager (in the case of Ubuntu gdebi) to install it with dependencies and all? Andrei Ubuntu (and family) is probably the only distro that you can expect gdebi to be installed on. And the only way to have it install the proper packages is to install a package with the required dependencies e.g. an AMD64 package. OK, thank you. To really make many Linux users happy would be to provide a repository. Even Google doesn't provide a one-click install for their programs (I bring them up because they try very hard to be user friendly). Good point. Who here knows what steps need be taken to create a repository? Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Justin Johansson, el 25 de mayo a las 22:42 me escribiste: retard wrote: The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32- bit libraries have been installed. Hey retard, while I enjoy reading a lot of the controversy that you like to create on this NG, sorry, on this occasion I think you are being somewhat unfair towards one particular person here. My understanding is that .zip files are traditionally a DOS (originally PKZIP) then come Windows thing then come Unix available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29 Being so, .zip files do not inherently/traditionally support recording Unix file permissions such as +x within the archive. If such facilities exist today in Unix .zip utilities (and I am unaware of the same) these would have to be extensions over and above what .zip files are commonly understood to support given the DOS/PKZIP history of this file format. Yes, it does: $ touch bin $ chmod a+x bin $ ls -l bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 luca luca 0 may 25 12:27 bin $ zip bin.zip bin adding: bin (stored 0%) $ rm bin $ ls -l bin ls: cannot access bin: No such file or directory $ unzip bin.zip Archive: bin.zip extracting: bin $ ls -l bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 luca luca 0 may 25 12:27 bin Recording of Unix file permissions in archives is traditionally achieved with .tar files (and compressed variants) as I am sure you are well aware. When downloading archive from the net, I look for .zip files if wanting to install on Windows and .tar or .tar.gz if wanting to install on Unixes. I imagine that most Unix-aware folks would do the same. That makes no sense. Even when history is interesting, now both zip and tar works just fine in both Unix and Windows, so retard is right, the zip being broken is entirely Walter's fault. And I think he knows it, that's why he said he wanted to give some love to the toolchain and distribution issues when D2 is finished. I don't think either attacking Walter gratuitously or defending him blindly is a good for D. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- He cometido pecados, he hecho el mal, he sido víctima de la envidia, el egoísmo, la ambición, la mentira y la frivolidad, pero siempre he sido un padre argentino que quiere que su hijo triunfe en la vida. -- Ricardo Vaporeso
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Jesse Phillips, el 25 de mayo a las 14:22 me escribiste: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think at the end of the day we need a link that people can click on and that's that. How can we make that work? Do we need a 64-bit .deb, or is it possible to automatically instruct the package manager (in the case of Ubuntu gdebi) to install it with dependencies and all? Andrei Ubuntu (and family) is probably the only distro that you can expect gdebi to be installed on. And the only way to have it install the proper packages is to install a package with the required dependencies e.g. an AMD64 package. To really make many Linux users happy would be to provide a repository. Even Google doesn't provide a one-click install for their programs (I bring them up because they try very hard to be user friendly). In Ubuntu is extremely easy, just create a PPA[1]. For Debian is not that east but is not that hard either and I think providing a (well done) .deb is acceptable. In Debian (or even Ubuntu) it could be possible to pull the package upstream (to the non-free repositories in Debian and to the multiverse repositories in Ubuntu, I think). *That* would be the ideal for a Debian/Ubuntu user. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Yo soy Peperino, mártir latino, venid al asado pero traed el vino. -- Peperino Pómoro
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 25 de mayo a las 08:27 me escribiste: On 05/24/2010 07:16 PM, eles wrote: == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei just type sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb where dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb is the name of the .deb file Thanks. Is there a way to make that directive automatic inside the .deb file? No, that's a broken deb file. The right thing to do is make 2 packages, one for i386 and one for amd64. The amd64 packages should depend on the necessary 32-bit libraries like ia32-libs. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Every day 21 new born babies will be given to the wrong parents
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Tue, 25 May 2010 13:38:00 -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Justin Johansson, el 25 de mayo a las 22:42 me escribiste: retard wrote: The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32- bit libraries have been installed. Hey retard, while I enjoy reading a lot of the controversy that you like to create on this NG, sorry, on this occasion I think you are being somewhat unfair towards one particular person here. My understanding is that .zip files are traditionally a DOS (originally PKZIP) then come Windows thing then come Unix available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29 Being so, .zip files do not inherently/traditionally support recording Unix file permissions such as +x within the archive. If such facilities exist today in Unix .zip utilities (and I am unaware of the same) these would have to be extensions over and above what .zip files are commonly understood to support given the DOS/PKZIP history of this file format. Yes, it does: $ touch bin $ chmod a+x bin $ ls -l bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 luca luca 0 may 25 12:27 bin $ zip bin.zip bin adding: bin (stored 0%) $ rm bin $ ls -l bin ls: cannot access bin: No such file or directory $ unzip bin.zip Archive: bin.zip extracting: bin $ ls -l bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 luca luca 0 may 25 12:27 bin Recording of Unix file permissions in archives is traditionally achieved with .tar files (and compressed variants) as I am sure you are well aware. When downloading archive from the net, I look for .zip files if wanting to install on Windows and .tar or .tar.gz if wanting to install on Unixes. I imagine that most Unix-aware folks would do the same. That makes no sense. Even when history is interesting, now both zip and tar works just fine in both Unix and Windows, so retard is right, the zip being broken is entirely Walter's fault. And I think he knows it, that's why he said he wanted to give some love to the toolchain and distribution issues when D2 is finished. I don't think either attacking Walter gratuitously or defending him blindly is a good for D. I wasn't attacking anyone, just pointing out the cause. Yes, it's because he uses a windows version of zip so it's his decision to make it harder for *nix users. Because of the non-free license he is the only person who can fix this -- I can't officially redistribute a fixed .zip package or any other repackaged dmd. And Justin is also right, I wouldn't mind having a .tar.gz package with the executable flags correctly set (and without win32 executables). Just repacking the distribution on a *nix computer would be enough to fix it and would probably be the easiest solution if windows zip archivers don't support setting the flag.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Good point. Who here knows what steps need be taken to create a repository? Andrei I haven't tried myself, someone has for the Tango side. It doesn't look to be too difficult: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/286 If you would like I could try to come up with a configuration file this week/weekend
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
== Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/24/2010 06:21 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
dsimcha: On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Some cases: - A person that is expert of Linux but is ignorant of Windows, and has to install it on Windows. This person can solve the install problem, but can enjoy some help. - An university student of the first year that wants to try D. Such person knows basic programming, data structures, and some OOP, but doesn't know much else about computers, OS, GUI, etc. A very easy installer can help. Expert C++ programmers can be more interested in keep using C++, while young people that don't know C++ yet can be interested in learning D. Such kind of people must be taken into account by D designers because they are the future. - A person that at work has just 10 free minutes, and wants to install and take a quick look at D language. Even reading the pages that explain how to install D can take time better spent in other ways. - A person that is kind of interested about some kind of language different from Java, but is not sure what to try, D, Scala, or some other language. So for such person it's good to lower the entry costs of D usage as much as possible. If D catches the interest of such person, this person can later spend even months learning D. So I'd the digitalmars (or other site) to keep the zip version, but I think a very easy and fast installer can be useful (For the Windows version of ShedSkin we use a similar simple installer based on WinRar). Even a few clicks installer can be a lot for the casual person that is not sure about trying D. For such persons the codepad and ideone sites can offer a way to try to compile and run D snippets online. Even faster than an installer, for people that just want to try the language quickly it can be useful a single-file zero-install download-and-go thing (this doesn't replace the installer and the zip, this can be a third download option). This thing when clicked on can show a basic editor window based on Scintilla. Bye, bearophile
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 5/24/10, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote: Even faster than an installer, for people that just want to try the language quickly it can be useful a single-file zero-install download-and-go thing That's exactly what the zip is. Unzip it and go. To uninstall, just delete the folder. On Linux, you could argue that you have to chmod +x it (not strictly true, but granted). Don't even have that on Windows.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
dsimcha, el 24 de mayo a las 13:05 me escribiste: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. BTW, distributing a huge .zip with the binaries for all platforms is not ideal either. In Linux you have to make the binaries executables. The only straighforward option for Linux is the .deb, but it's only straightforward for Ubuntu 32-bits, anything else needs some (non-trivial) work. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- I would love to fix this world but I'm so lazy... so lazy...
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
== Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llu...@gmail.com)'s article dsimcha, el 24 de mayo a las 13:05 me escribiste: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. BTW, distributing a huge .zip with the binaries for all platforms is not ideal either. In Linux you have to make the binaries executables. The only straighforward option for Linux is the .deb, but it's only straightforward for Ubuntu 32-bits, anything else needs some (non-trivial) work. If packaging nightmares like this don't explain why Linux hasn't succeeded on the desktop, then nothing will.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
dsimcha wrote: On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. There is an installer for Windows. See http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
On 05/24/2010 09:05 AM, dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s article On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Installation? What kind of problems are those? On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is to compile from source. On Windows there's been some talk of making an installer. Personally, I think this should be a very low priority. Unpacking a zip file may not be the most friendly installation method for someone who's completely computer illiterate, but we're talking about programmers here. Even novice ones should be able to figure out how to unpack a zip file into a reasonable directory. Actually, if you use InstallJammer, creating an installer could/should be very easy. I used it at work for a project and it will allow you to create an installer for a number of different platforms and a plain-old .zip/.tar.gz. Though, IMHO, I really like the way it's currently distributed. I've grown to appreciate the simple unzip to install/delete directory to uninstall way of doing things a lot. I just really hate the dependency that damn near everything has on the Windows registry. Casey
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei just type sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb where dmd_X.XXX-0_i386.deb is the name of the .deb file
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
installation instructions for linux (incl. 32-bit or 64 bit) are here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/dmd-linux.html however, i would like to have it ported on 64-bit == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 05/24/2010 05:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: E.g. I can't install the .deb file on my 64-bit Linux. I think the current .deb files can be. Just tried again, same error message: Error: Wrong architecture 'i386' Let me know how I can help. Andrei DDebber will build packages for i386 and AMD64. The main difference is that the AMD64 package will depended on the required ia32 libraries which will not be pulled in with -force-architecture. Just say'n Ok, it still isn't that simple because if you don't have the required packages then dmd will be left unconfigured since dpkg will not install dependencies. # apt-get -f should fix this.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Walter Bright: I should amend that by saying that post D2 emphasis will be on addressing problems with the toolchain, of which 64 bit support is a big one. Language changes will be a very low priority. Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Things are not as simple as you say: among the Bugzilla bugs there is more than just pure implementation bugs, there are design bugs too, and they are essentially language changes. I can list you many of them. Bye, bearophile
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
bearophile Wrote: Walter Bright: I should amend that by saying that post D2 emphasis will be on addressing problems with the toolchain, of which 64 bit support is a big one. Language changes will be a very low priority. Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. Things are not as simple as you say: among the Bugzilla bugs there is more than just pure implementation bugs, there are design bugs too, and they are essentially language changes. I can list you many of them. Bye, bearophile I just hope D won't try to become Jack of All Trades, ad least not to early :D
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
dsimcha wrote: Is that still the next priority after finishing D2? Yes. I think no support for 64 bits is a serious deficit.
Re: 64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)
Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: Is that still the next priority after finishing D2? Yes. I think no support for 64 bits is a serious deficit. I should amend that by saying that post D2 emphasis will be on addressing problems with the toolchain, of which 64 bit support is a big one. Language changes will be a very low priority. Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, installation, bugzilla bugs, etc.
