Re: Two Questions
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 19:29:28 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Programming world is naturally elitist. There is nothing just about it. Problem to solve is making more modern h/w available for interested souls, not reverting to write 32-bit programs. There's no software solution to hardware problems. On Saturday, 15 February 2014 at 07:04:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Windows. And it would be nice if we could get to the point where everyone is on 64-bit OSes so that we can stop worrying about about supporting 32-bit software outside of emulators or virtual machines. Virtualization is a good use case for 32-bit: you can run many guest oses on one machine and ensure their 32-bit software doesn't consume lots of memory just because it's 32-bit.
Re: Two Questions
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:20:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: 4GB would be pretty low end at this point anyway. http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/Notebook/F3F15UA!23ABA
Re: Two Questions
On 2/14/2014 12:50 PM, Steve Teale wrote: On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that you have a very different world-view than I do with regards to computers. Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist. [...] and telling us to get into the 21st century doesn't help much. He never said that or anything amounting to it. For god's sake, in the very sentence of his you quoted, and then complained about, he flat-out agreed to disagree. We don't need to be twisting each other's words into insults that were clearly never said nor intended. But that said though, like Dicebot indicated, there ARE a *LOT* of elitist consumer whores out there in the software world (I'm saying "out there" while pointing directly *away* from this NG and any of its members, and I genuinely mean that: I'm not just saying "not the people here" merely to be civil). It's easily one of my biggest pet peeves about the industry. Ever since computing finally shed its [equally inexcusable] "dork" image, computing has turned into a goddamn fashion industry. And that attracts the living tools of the world like nothing else. Depressing and infuriating, and worth fighting against, but still true :(
Re: Two Questions
On Friday, February 14, 2014 17:50:56 Steve Teale wrote: > On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that > > you have a very > > different world-view than I do with regards to computers. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist. > > I certainly do have a different world view. I live in Africa > where most of what you can get is probably old stock that got > dumped here. Of the last 3 2G memory cards I bought, 2 were duff, > and that's at $50 apiece, and little chance of getting your money > back. > > Even when I got two that worked, my motherboard could only > support 3 of the 4G, even though the processor is quite capable. > > We're stuck with 32 bit for a long time here, and telling us to > get into the 21st century doesn't help much. I was merely indicating what my expectations were based on what I know and have seen, not trying to insist that anyone who didn't match them needed to get a new computer or anything like that. And from the sounds of it, you're stuck with hardware that's nearly a decade old, which is not the sort of hardware that I'd expect a software developer to have. So, if anything, I feel sorry for you. I'm certainly not trying to look down on you. But it doesn't really change my take on 32-bit vs 64-bit. I still wouldn't use a 32-bit OS unless I had no other choice, and it is only a matter of time until 32-bit is essentially dead - especially outside of Windows. And it would be nice if we could get to the point where everyone is on 64-bit OSes so that we can stop worrying about about supporting 32-bit software outside of emulators or virtual machines. But regardless of the situation in the third world, as long as Microsoft continues to sell 32-bit versions of Windows, we're still going to have at least some 32-bit software. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Two Questions
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 17:50:57 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist. Programming world is naturally elitist. There is nothing just about it. Problem to solve is making more modern h/w available for interested souls, not reverting to write 32-bit programs.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? You should start a poll somewhere to have a proportion, because only linux-users are replying. I am using ArchLinux 64 bits ( i3, 4 gB ).
Re: Two Questions
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that you have a very different world-view than I do with regards to computers. - Jonathan M Davis Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist. I certainly do have a different world view. I live in Africa where most of what you can get is probably old stock that got dumped here. Of the last 3 2G memory cards I bought, 2 were duff, and that's at $50 apiece, and little chance of getting your money back. Even when I got two that worked, my motherboard could only support 3 of the 4G, even though the processor is quite capable. We're stuck with 32 bit for a long time here, and telling us to get into the 21st century doesn't help much. Steve
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? I have an 64-bit Mac OS X Mountain Lion.
Re: Two Questions
On 2/13/14, 18:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, February 10, 2014 18:21:02 Steve Teale wrote: On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis [snip] For a desktop? It's trivial to get a lot of memory into one of those. Laptops would be more limiting, but even there, I'd expect 4GB to be on the low side at this point, For *new* machines yes. But 2 and even 1 are still common.
Re: Two Questions
On 2/13/2014 7:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: as far as I can see, there's no reason for Microsoft to even be selling a 32- bit version of their OS anymore, since 32-bit programs will run on the 64-bit version, and 32-bit x86 chips aren't produced anymore. They've all been 64-bit for years now. So, even if someone has a lower end machine that has less than 4GB, I see no reason to run a 32-bit OS on it. Last I heard, Intel still manufactures a metric shit-ton of chips that deliberately lack hardware virtualization (my machine's not even a couple years old and it uses one of those chips). So running VMed Windows (VirtualBox, etc) would be impossible on those machines without a 32-bit Windows.
Re: Two Questions
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 20:23:53 Kagamin wrote: > On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > And you get more memory out of > > the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish > > that everything > > would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry > > about 32-bit > > anymore. > > What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM? Being able to actually use all of it. IIRC, the most that you can actually use with a 32-bit OS is more like 3.6GB. > The fact is cheap configurations became available for a wider > userbase with smaller income, who wouldn't think to buy a > notebook not so long ago. And you sure can't persuade them to > spend more money, 32-bit OS works and once installed it will run > long (you don't upgrade notebooks), as long as it works, there's > no reason to fix it. Except that there's no reason to put a 32-bit OS on the machine in the first place. Sure, most folks will use whatever OS was on the box, and for some reason, Microsoft continues to sell 32-bit versions of its OS, but AFAIK, there's no real advantage to running a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor - only disadvantages. Maybe there's a good reason for it that I'm not aware of, but as far as I can see, there's no reason for Microsoft to even be selling a 32- bit version of their OS anymore, since 32-bit programs will run on the 64-bit version, and 32-bit x86 chips aren't produced anymore. They've all been 64-bit for years now. So, even if someone has a lower end machine that has less than 4GB, I see no reason to run a 32-bit OS on it. And I would have thought that 4GB would be pretty low end at this point anyway. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Two Questions
On Monday, February 10, 2014 18:21:02 Steve Teale wrote: > On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being > > as cheap as it > > is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the > > box as it can > > Jonathan, you live in a different world. Memory is not cheap > everywhere - maybe not even available, and not everyone - > probably a minority in fact in world terms, has a recent > processor, or even enough memory slots. For a desktop? It's trivial to get a lot of memory into one of those. Laptops would be more limiting, but even there, I'd expect 4GB to be on the low side at this point, and that's already more than 32-bit machines can address. And it's been 5+ years since I even had as little as 8GB in a machine, so I'd expect most desktops and laptops at this point to have enough memory that it couldn't all be addressed with 32 bits (stuff like mobile and embedded are clearly a different world though). And I'd certainly expect a developer to normally have a machine with at least 4GB. I definitely do use a lot more memory than most people do though - in part because I tend to leave everything open all the time. And I typically have a machine that's no more than 2 or 3 years old with hardware which was on the higher end of things when I bought it. Folks who don't upgrade as often would be more on the 4GB side of things rather than in the 64GB range, but it's been a numbers of years since 4GB was a lot, so I would have thought that having at least that much would be pretty common at this point. Regardless, it's been quite a few years since any desktop or laptop chips were 32-bit, so I don't see any reason to run a 32-bit OS unless your unlucky enough to have a 32-bit version of Windows, and IMHO, it really hasn't made a lot of sense to run a 32-bit version of Windows since Vista was released (though 64-bit XP was a joke, so prior to Vista, it would have made sense to be running a 32-bit OS). But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that you have a very different world-view than I do with regards to computers. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Two Questions
On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 06:19:41 UTC, evilrat wrote: On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 17:01:26 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building both 32-bit and 64-bit versions Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute? just imagine a pensioner compiling chrome(or other big project) for all OS'es on one box all at once... I would take my hat off to that pensioner! (If I had one)
Re: Two Questions
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 17:01:26 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building both 32-bit and 64-bit versions Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute? just imagine a pensioner compiling chrome(or other big project) for all OS'es on one box all at once...
Re: Two Questions
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 20:23:55 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And you get more memory out of the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish that everything would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry about 32-bit anymore. What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM? x32 is the "obvious" solution, best of both worlds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI ... I really wonder why it has not yet gone mainstream.
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And you get more memory out of the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish that everything would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry about 32-bit anymore. What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM? The fact is cheap configurations became available for a wider userbase with smaller income, who wouldn't think to buy a notebook not so long ago. And you sure can't persuade them to spend more money, 32-bit OS works and once installed it will run long (you don't upgrade notebooks), as long as it works, there's no reason to fix it.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux x64 (OpenSuse 13.1): powerful and versatile environment.
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building both 32-bit and 64-bit versions Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute?
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 13:56:41 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux 64bit here. Why should I use a 32bit system? Currently I see only disadvantages. Linux is easier and more confortable to develop. And our servers use linux too (so software must run on linux). Development: Linux 64bit & 32bit Applications: Windows Mac OS X (includes a certain amount of development on these platforms too, but mainly concerns system integration)
Re: Two Questions
Linux AMD64. Windows 64bit Vista and onwards are now OK IMO but I've been a linux user for a very long time now. As a scarred ex-Windows 3.0 user I still compulsively ctrl-S after every sentence typed. I have real concerns that Android/Java has gained huge momentum, Java is bearable but I'd far rather be using D.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux 64bit here. Why should I use a 32bit system? Currently I see only disadvantages. Linux is easier and more confortable to develop. And our servers use linux too (so software must run on linux).
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being as cheap as it is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the box as it can Jonathan, you live in a different world. Memory is not cheap everywhere - maybe not even available, and not everyone - probably a minority in fact in world terms, has a recent processor, or even enough memory slots.
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 18:16:08 Steve Teale wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: > > Popped into my head today. > > > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? > > > > And why? > > OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. > What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not > noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to > make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world > computer users? Cross compilation? If you're building on Linux, and you're developing software, you're either just distributing source (and thus not building it for _anyone_), or you're building it for several distros, which means worrying about deb and rpm and all that nonsense. Cross-compilation is trivial in comparison. Or do you mean having to cross compile for Windows? If you need to build something for Windows, then you build something for Windows - probably on a Windows machine. But why should I suffer through using Windows as my normal machine just because the majority of users do? But really, most of the time, I don't care what other people might be using. I use my desktop for everything, not just development, so what target I might be creating software some portion of my time is pretty irrelevant. If I needed to be creating Windows software and couldn't develop it cross-platform enough to do it on Linux, I'd just switch to a Windows box to do that work and live in Linux the rest of the time. Fortunately, for work, what I do is cross-platform enough, and several of our products are on Linux, such that most of the time I'm in Linux, but I do sometimes have to use a Windows box to develop software at work. At home though, I rarely have any reason to touch Windows. As for 64-bit, I couldn't possibly live in 32-bit land at this point. I always have dozens of Windows open across several virtual desktops on my home machine such that even if all of the programs had relatively small memory footprints, I'd eat through memory. At this particular moment, I'm using about 21.6 out of 64GB of memory on my machine, and most of the running applications use less than 100MB of memory - only 9 are using more than 200MB. Memory usage adds up _fast_ when have a lot of applications open, even without any memory hogs. But I'd also prefer to be able run programs that are memory hogs when I need to, so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being as cheap as it is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the box as it can hold). And actually, with 64GB, for the first time in years, I don't have memory problems (my last computer had only 16GB), and it's great. I rarely use anywhere near 32GB, so 32 would probably be enough, but I'd much rather have 64 and not worry about it at all. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother with 32-bit these days except maybe for mobile, where a lot of ARM chips are 32-bit. x86 chips have all been 64-bit for years now. If you're using 32-bit, you're just restricting yourself on how much memory you can use to little benefit as far as I can see. Even if all of the applications that you're running or building are 32-bit, you're still better off having the OS be in 64-bit. And you get more memory out of the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish that everything would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry about 32-bit anymore. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Two Questions
On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 18:16 +, Steve Teale wrote: […] > OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. > What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not > noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to > make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world > computer users? I do not understand the "memory hog" gibe, but yes 32-bit, 64-bit is not a speed thing. Everyone I know who uses a computer always has 8GB or more of memory, so 32-bit OS is not an option. I guess the vast proportion of world computer users are now phone and tablet users so yes can probably survive with a mere 32-bit OS. Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, so I don't see "cross compilation" as an issue. A far bigger issue is how the can you support all the variants of Windows, OSX, Linux, etc. without a CI/build farm. This is why we like the JVM ;-) -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:21:08 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 18:16:09 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world computer users? 64 bit is pretty ubiquitous in the laptop/desktop/server/cluster world*. The extra registers is occasionally important, as is the guarantee of SSE2. Memory is dirt cheap these days, so that really isn't a problem. The larger address space is important for security reasons, as well as the obvious ease of use of more RAM in a single process. *and if you're straying out of that world then cross compilation is standard anyway. Just to clarify, of course I am talking from an x86-centric viewpoint.
Re: Two Questions
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 18:16:09 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world computer users? 64 bit is pretty ubiquitous in the laptop/desktop/server/cluster world*. The extra registers is occasionally important, as is the guarantee of SSE2. Memory is dirt cheap these days, so that really isn't a problem. The larger address space is important for security reasons, as well as the obvious ease of use of more RAM in a single process. *and if you're straying out of that world then cross compilation is standard anyway.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world computer users?
Re: Two Questions
Am Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:18:24 + schrieb "Steve Teale" : > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? > > And why? Linux 64-bit. The reason for 64-bit is simple. It means less pressure on the address space (e.g. no more running out of virtual memory), more CPU registers, more recent instructions (SSE3 is supported on all amd64 CPUs) as well as reworked calling conventions. In other words: All the good stuff. I don't quite remember my reason for Linux back then. But it probably comes down to those: o finding out why Linux was becoming more and more popular o trying and learning something new and getting past the routine of just installing the latest version of Windows every 2 years o having a configurable system with only the background services I need and know about Now I could add: o very low virus threat o my current system came only with a 32-bit Vista, but on Linux I could leverage the 64-bit potential of my CPU o the joy of witnessing how the desktop experience and drivers become improved over time on Linux (automatic input device discovery, audio equalizers, video thumbnails, etc.) o the ease of getting GDC or LDC running, because LLVM and GCC are part of most Linux distributions o D and most *nix systems share their preference for UTF-8, whereas on Windows you have to be more aware of code pages unless an API is wchar based. That ranges from stdout.writeln to APIs like OpenAL. -- Marco
Re: Two Questions
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:07:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:04 +, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +, Steve Teale wrote: > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only. > And why? Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory. That answers the why 64-bit. Why Linux? because FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't have traction, Windows is simply unacceptable, and I do use OSX a bit (so I guess I do use a form of FreeBSD). I think that the only difference from OSX to *BSD is the GUI (I've hear that). But *BSD still are very good and can run any OSX/Linux application as native. I'm fine with that.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 16:18:24 Steve Teale wrote: > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? 64-bit Linux (currently on OpenSuSE, though I was on Arch for quite a while) > And why? Because that's what my desktop is and the environment that I prefer to have for my computer in general (with KDE). 32-bit should just die at this point IMHO (though it'll probably be a while before that happens), and I only deal with Windows if I have to and have no interest in anything from Apple, so I'm not going to be on either Windows or Mac OS X. Out of the supported environments, that only leaves FreeBSD, and while I could presumably get that pretty close to what I'm used to on Linux, I also see no point in messing with it over Linux other than to mess with it for the fun of it. So, I'm on 64-bit Linux almost all the time, including for anything I do with D. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Two Questions [OT]
The problem I've had with MacPorts is that a bunch of ports are just broken (meld, for instance). I've had a lot more success getting apps I pick to actually run when obtained via Homebrew. As for OS... I used to target Solaris. Linux isn't perfect, but at least it isn't that pile of junk.
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 07:55 -0600, 1100110 wrote: > On 2/5/14, 6:55, Gary Willoughby wrote: […] > > Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well behaved > > where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions. > > Oh good, I came very close to installing macports yesterday. Thanks! I started using MacPorts long before Brew existed. MacPorts has improved massively over the last couple of years. If I was starting from scratch I would probably install Brew, but now I'm a MacPort user I'll probably stick. Brew refuses to install on a MacPort using machine, and there seems no way of telling Brew to install it's version of everything there was in a MacPort installation. AFAIK anyway. For packagers I would say targetting an installer, MacPorts and Brew for OSX is like doing a tarball, deb and rpm for Linux. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Re: Two Questions
- about 55% Windows 8.1/64 (but development mostly using DMD/32, except for cases where the MS linker is needed) - about 40% Linux Mint/64 - the rest on Mac/64 and rarely FreeBSD/64 I'm most used to Windows and still have a few applications (graphics) that only run there + also develop GUI applications that need to be tested there constantly, but the main reason development-wise is still quick access to the VisualStudio debugger. However, Cinnamon looks really nice and I'm considering switching back to mostly Linux. Working on Mac OS just never felt quite as efficient as on the other systems, mostly due to the awkward keyboard layout and key combinations required there. 64-bit OS... mostly to make full use of the system RAM and the CPU and because the memory overhead doesn't really matter.
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On 2/5/14, 6:55, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote: On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/ Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up. You'd recommend Brew over the alternatives? Sorry, rather new to developing with this OS... Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well behaved where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions. Oh good, I came very close to installing macports yesterday. Thanks!
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On 2/5/14, 6:41, evilrat wrote: On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote: On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/ Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up. You'd recommend Brew over the alternatives? Sorry, rather new to developing with this OS... the sad truth is that there is no convenient way of doing D on OS X, but recent changes in Mono-D have brough some ease to it actually. still forget about any debug because there is NO DEBUG INFO generated with both DMD & LDC (not tested GDC yet). as for GDB and other GNU stuff, yes brew is simple enough to get it done. Ok, thanks!
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote: On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/ Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up. You'd recommend Brew over the alternatives? Sorry, rather new to developing with this OS... Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well behaved where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions.
Re: Two Questions
On 5 February 2014 22:36, evilrat wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: > >> Popped into my head today. >> >> What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and >> what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? >> >> And why? >> > > 64-bit Windows 8.1 and some minimal OS X 10.9 stuff. > > offtopic: > after reading this thread it is become obvious why there are still no > proper shared lib implementation for Windows and why OS X version is even > further behind... > Welcome to the world's most populous by severely under-represented club ;)
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote: On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/ Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up. You'd recommend Brew over the alternatives? Sorry, rather new to developing with this OS... the sad truth is that there is no convenient way of doing D on OS X, but recent changes in Mono-D have brough some ease to it actually. still forget about any debug because there is NO DEBUG INFO generated with both DMD & LDC (not tested GDC yet). as for GDB and other GNU stuff, yes brew is simple enough to get it done.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? 64-bit Windows 8.1 and some minimal OS X 10.9 stuff. offtopic: after reading this thread it is become obvious why there are still no proper shared lib implementation for Windows and why OS X version is even further behind...
Re: Two Questions
On 2/4/14, 10:18, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? I vastly prefer Linux over anything else for development, and the vast majority of linux distros are 64bit by default. Although I just bought a macbook pro, so I'll either use a virtual machine, or figure out how to still be productive on OSX. I'll probably end up using ssh into a VM...
Re: Two Questions [OT]
On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/ Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up. You'd recommend Brew over the alternatives? Sorry, rather new to developing with this OS...
Re: Two Questions
On 5 February 2014 02:18, Steve Teale wrote: > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and > what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? > > And why? > Windows x64 here. Because the x64 DMD can link against the MS libs, which are the de facto standard in windows. Win32 is only useful if you write stand-alone D apps which link no libs.
Re: Two Questions
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:04 +, Russel Winder wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +, Steve Teale wrote: > > Popped into my head today. > > > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? > > I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only. > > > And why? > > Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory. That answers the why 64-bit. Why Linux? because FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't have traction, Windows is simply unacceptable, and I do use OSX a bit (so I guess I do use a form of FreeBSD). -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Re: Two Questions
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +, Steve Teale wrote: > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some > sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only. > And why? Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? There has been polls in the past, I believe Linux dominates (not sure if there were questions about 64bit). Linux amd64 is my main desktop, so it is also my main platform for hobby projects. At work we run we have Windows, I end up writing for 32 bit there because I haven't had good luck with hobby projects moving to 64bit windows. Why is linux my main desktop? I'll provide one example. I have 3 desktops right now. Two have different programming project items, and then there is this one with Steam, hulu and other entertainment items. Linux Rox.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? OS: linux x64, freebsd x64. Why: Both are superior to most other OSs, available either free or $$$. Cheers, ed
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? 64-bit Linux I did work on Windows until I started using Git. I'm sure Git works passably on Windows, but I know that life is better for everyone in the world if you set up your repository on a *nix machine, because the default for your files will have \n line endings and your folder structure will have to support case-sensitive file names.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? At work I develop on Win7, because my company is a Microsoft groupie. My personal machine runs Arch Linux, but I have very little time to hack on it(and when I do, it's usually Vim plugins) Both are 64bit
Re: Two Questions
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:18:24 -0800, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? I use Windows 8.1 x64 and write apps exclusively for x64. I use Windows primarily because it's what I know best and it has capabilities I haven't found on Linux yet. -- Adam Wilson GitHub/IRC: LightBender Aurora Project Coordinator
Re: Two Questions
On 2/4/2014 11:18 AM, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? My *main* development is done on a Win7 64-bit machine (even though I absolutely *hate* all versions of windows post-XP). This is because Linux still doesn't quite meet all of my needs, even though I've been itching to switch. I usually target 32-bit though, partly because of inertia and partly because I don't want to deal with getting DMD connected up and working with the MSVC linker. I can never remember how to and last time I tried I failed (I think my MS toolchain actually ate itself without anything even touching it). I also do development on Linux though, partly because I try to be cross-platform, and also because my server is Linux (the only sensible choice for a remote server IMO). But my Linux dev is usually on a 32-bit OS because my CPU is a f*&^$#* Intel and doesn't include hardware virtualization (which Intel has deemed to be unworthy for anyone not willing to shell out $ for high-end hardware), so I can't run 64-bit VMs.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux 64 bit. I also have win8 on my laptop and Win7 on an older PC, and sometimes I do use them. If it was for me, 32 bit support and WinXP support could be dropped at any time :P Why 64 bit: 32 is sort of old, and 2 GB on scientific computing doesn't cut it Why linux: because it's made by developers for developers. You can feel the difference when it comes to tools and managing the software.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? Linux 64 bit. And why? Why not? :)
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? I develop 64 bit apps on Linux exclusively. High volume distributed server code for the most part. Which I guess these days you'd call cloud services.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux 64-bit Why? Because it is default. There should be a reason to go for anything else, not other way around :)
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions. And why? Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win! I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt. [1]: http://brew.sh/
Re: Two Questions
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:18:24 +, Steve Teale wrote: > Popped into my head today. > > What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and > what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? > > And why? 64bit linux. Cause it's open-source Unix(y), that is, the proper design for an operating system.
Re: Two Questions
What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? Arch Linux 64-bit on a Lenovo laptop from work. It's what I use to develop everything and I wouldn't have it any other way. And why? Why Linux or why 64-bit? Atila
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux, 64bit. I have developed an HTTP 1.1 web server, and it is being used in production server which runs Linux 64 bit.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? My main development platform is x86_64 Linux, because it was free and well-supported so I downloaded it for my laptop which is my main development machine. My laptop has an AMD64 processor, so why not use the proper OS architecture for it? I use Windows 7 on my Desktop, which I do a fair amount of development on, and have a few OSes set up in VirtualBox (a VM) to ensure my software works on most major operating system setups if necessary. Regards, Kelet
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? Linux x64 why? Linux fits me well, for all the usual reasons. The philosophy of a small set of specialized tools that do their jobs very well and interface sensibly however I want them to appeals to me, much more so than having a leviathan that pretends to know what I want. Having said that, I don't want to be stuck without the occasional convenience. Hence: linux.
Re: Two Questions
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: Popped into my head today. What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS? And why? I on develop Linux and work with a 64 bit.
Re: Two Questions
Most my work is on 32 bit linux. I use 32 bit just because that's what worked when I started most these projects and don't have any need to change. Linux is simply what's on the web servers I spend much of my dev time on. I do Windows stuff too though, but very little 64 bit there either.
