Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-07 13:41, David Nadlinger wrote: Yes, it is not supported by linker and dyld versions shipping with OS X 10.7. This is also the reason why LDC 2 only supports OS X 10.7+, as LLVM does not implement a workaround for older versions (although implementing one up to the point where it is good enough for D should be doable without too much effort). I've looked a bit at this and if we want to emulate TLS and support dynamic libraries on Mac OS X 10.6 I think we basically need to do what the dynamic linker does on 10.7. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: A look at the D programming language by Ferdynand Górski
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 22:14:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 01/07/2013 01:57 PM, Phil Lavoie wrote: > I meant scope objects work fine in most cases, but sometimes its good to > explicitly delete objects on the heap. Usually, what is needed is to just finalize the object. The memory that it sits on should still be managed by the GC. This is all fine when GC is precise. With current GC in 32 bits I'd rather have manual deallocation than leaks. This is actually what I successfully did in a photo editing app: using 'delete' for large chunks of data (uncompressed photos) and GC for the rest. This way everything worked smoothly.
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-07 23:04, Walter Bright wrote: Me neither. Mac OS X 10.6 was released August 28, 2009. There have been two major releases since then. Sounds like we can pull the plug. I've been trying to see if it's possible to get the market share for Mac OS X 10.6. This site claims it has just below 30% : http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomb=*2 -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-08 21:49, Walter Bright wrote: So it won't run any 64 bit software? It can run 64bit software just fine. Mac OS X has been able to do that for a long time. 10.6 was the first version the kernel tries to run in 64bit mode (depends on the computer). Just because the kernel doesn't run in 64bit doesn't mean that the rest of the software can't run in 64bit. For at least a couple releases now, dmd for OS X has only included the 64 bit binaries for dmd. Not a single person has noticed (at least nobody has commented on it). We do build and test the OS X 32 bit dmd binaries, but left them off of the install package. There is no problem. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Announcement: "preapproved" tag added to bugzilla
On 2013-30-09 04:01, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Some reasons to reject: outright insane request. RESOLVED: OUTRIGHT INSANE REQUEST Yup, I likes that. -- Simen
Re: Announcement: "preapproved" tag added to bugzilla
On 1/9/13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > An enhancement request that has the "preapproved" tag is considered > reviewed and vetted by Walter (and myself on occasion). I would also like the BDFLs to start closing down some enhancements, there's too many opened in bugzilla as is (854) and there are bound to be many worthy of a rejection. Some reasons to reject: existing code would break / a workaround already exists / enhancement too large or abstract and should be a DIP / outright insane request / etc.
Re: Announcement: "preapproved" tag added to bugzilla
Andrei Alexandrescu: We will follow later today with a preapproved enhancement request. (Of course, we will also preapprove enhancements written by others, too.) I don't remember of other language communities doing this, but it seems a nice idea :-) Bye, bearophile
Announcement: "preapproved" tag added to bugzilla
Hello, As part of our continued efforts to improve the process, we have added the "preapproved" tag to bugzilla. An enhancement request that has the "preapproved" tag is considered reviewed and vetted by Walter (and myself on occasion). An implementation of the issue is guaranteed to be approved pending technical review. This is part of a larger attempt to make it easy for contributors to work on items of maximum impact, while hedging the risk of working on some feature without entering production. One nice perk is that this flow will encourage well-written and well-argued enhancement requests. We will follow later today with a preapproved enhancement request. (Of course, we will also preapprove enhancements written by others, too.) Thanks, Andrei
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:11:30 +0100
"deadalnix" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> >> > "deadalnix" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
> >> >>
> >> >> struct Bar {}
> >> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
> >> >>
> >> >> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
> >> >>
> >> >> I still have code broken all over the place.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, they tried to include this change in 2.060 (or was it
> >> > 2.059?),
> >> > but due to the major problems it causes, and the fact that
> >> > it *does*
> >> > make sense to use a temporary as an lvalue if you don't
> >> > intend to
> >> > use it again afterwords, there was a big discussion about it
> >> > on the
> >> > beta list and it was ultimately nixed. I'm disappointed to
> >> > see that
> >> > it snuck back.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, fixing the rvalue ref problem is still on the front
> >> burner.
> >
> > Wait, so are you saying that the above code which stopped
> > working in
> > 2.061 will start working again in a later version?
>
> No, I think he meant that breaking that code was actually fixing
> the language because it shouldn't have worked in a first place
> (thing I disagree with but I understand the reasoning).
So then what's this "rvalue ref problem" that's "still on the front
burner"?
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 1/8/2013 4:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006. Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with Snow Leopard. MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB. This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor report different states of being, leading to real pain building stuff. So it won't run any 64 bit software? For at least a couple releases now, dmd for OS X has only included the 64 bit binaries for dmd. Not a single person has noticed (at least nobody has commented on it). We do build and test the OS X 32 bit dmd binaries, but left them off of the install package.
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
On 1/8/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What about licensing issues, is it even legal to for D1's backend? I mean, I don't mind doing it personally, because I believe I won't have any problems. But company lawyers don't think so positively :) If you've got a licensing issue, talk to me and I'll do my best to get it resolved for you to the satisfaction of your lawyers.
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote: Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of XP: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more. Actually, I have the installation for Lion left on my hard drive. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote: Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of XP: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more. They don't sell USB sticks anymore? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On 2013-01-08 13:52, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with Snow Leopard. I just did. MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB. I think mine is from late 2006. This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor report different states of being, leading to real pain building stuff. I haven't noticed any problems. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
Pierre Rouleau, el 7 de January a las 23:17 me escribiste: > I agree that feature releases mostly also contain bug fixes. I > should have said, and I was thinking about proposing a process where > minor releases that would only include bug fixes, and where major > releases would mainly introduce new features but would also include > some bug fixes. > > At work this is exactly what we do. And today, at work, I was just > in a meeting evaluating bugs to identify bugs that will be fixed in > a release of our product that will only contain bug fixes. The > fixes that are selected where selected based on their severity, the > impact they have on end-users and the time it takes to fix them. This is how most software projects works (specially open source projects). Major, minor and patchlevel version numbers, and have been explained and suggested here for ages. At this point I would be happy if we only get minor releases from time to time fixing only regressions and critical/security bugs that can't wait for a next release. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- You can try the best you can If you try the best you can The best you can is good enough
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
Walter Bright, el 7 de January a las 13:27 me escribiste: > On 1/7/2013 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste: > >>One thing I want to do is enshrine a vetting mechanism that would > >>allow Walter and myself to "pre-approve" enhancement requests. > >>Someone (including us) would submit an enhancement request to > >>Bugzilla, and then Walter and I add the tag "preapproved" to it. > >>That means an implementation of the request has our approval > >>assuming it has the appropriate quality. > > > >BTW, I wouldn't mind if you like to try this out with issue 7044 (see the > >pull > >request for more comments), which is really annoying us at work but I never > >got > >to fix because the lack of feedback (a perfect example of somebody willing, > >almost craving, to fix something and not doing it because of the lack of > >feedback). > > > > At this point, reading the discussions in the links, I don't know > just what the latest proposal is. > > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/497 > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7044 > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1605.1334108859.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com The latest proposal is: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7044#c3 You commented about it, I replied to your comments, and you never commented back. I also added me as assignee, I think it would be a good idea for people wanting to implement something (seriously), to add themselves as assignee. Doing so would mean that person is assuming a commitment to implement the feature if consensus is achieved. It would be the same as "preapproved" but from the other side. You could also prioritize and give feedback to issues with somebody assigned first. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Creativity is great but plagiarism is faster
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
Walter Bright, el 8 de January a las 00:57 me escribiste: > On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote: > >And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I > >understand > >properly D1 first release was 6 years ago. Lets assume I would have started > >a > >product development with it say 2 years ago because it was deemed relatively > >stable then. And now I want to support 64-bit Windows and my customers are > >starting to ask for Windows-8 support. Or some other things gets in the way > >(a > >bug somewhere, Windows 9 getting released sooner because Windows 8 is not as > >popular as Microsoft would have hoped.) What would be my alternatives? Port > >all > >the code to D2? Is this what will happen to D2? I'd like to know before I > >commit people and convince others. > > The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always > understood that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. > Supporting it for 6 years is a pretty long time in the software > business. > > At some point, you'll need to make a decision: > > 1. move to D2 > > 2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked What about licensing issues, is it even legal to for D1's backend? I mean, I don't mind doing it personally, because I believe I won't have any problems. But company lawyers don't think so positively :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Es erróneo pensar que el repollo es una afirmación de personalidad del volátil, es una verdura, es una verdura. -- Ricardo Vaporeso
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of XP: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more. -- 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
On 13-01-08 3:57 AM, Walter Bright wrote: 3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many other competent people in the community to help you with D1 Good point. Probably the most important. -- /Pierre Rouleau
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006. Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with Snow Leopard. MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB. This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor report different states of being, leading to real pain building stuff. -- 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: On Rust [OT]
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 02:03:29 UTC, bearophile wrote: The slides: https://speakerd.s3.amazonaws.com/presentations/505f7d17ccf4a50002011800/emerging-languages.pdf Bye, bearophile Here is a site http://www.rustforrubyists.com presenting Rust for Ruby developers, it's quite long, but interesting.. Bye, renoX
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
On 2013-01-08 09:57, Walter Bright wrote: The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for 6 years is a pretty long time in the software business. At some point, you'll need to make a decision: 1. move to D2 2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked 3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many other competent people in the community to help you with D1 4. There's also Amber now which seems to be basically the same as D1 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/zflwhizhppbdqfioz...@forum.dlang.org -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release
On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote: And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I understand properly D1 first release was 6 years ago. Lets assume I would have started a product development with it say 2 years ago because it was deemed relatively stable then. And now I want to support 64-bit Windows and my customers are starting to ask for Windows-8 support. Or some other things gets in the way (a bug somewhere, Windows 9 getting released sooner because Windows 8 is not as popular as Microsoft would have hoped.) What would be my alternatives? Port all the code to D2? Is this what will happen to D2? I'd like to know before I commit people and convince others. The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for 6 years is a pretty long time in the software business. At some point, you'll need to make a decision: 1. move to D2 2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked 3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many other competent people in the community to help you with D1 It's pretty much the same with any software product. We were just talking about how Apple pretty much has deprecated OS X 10.6, Microsoft regularly abandons old versions of its operating systems, and I just found out that my Ubuntu is no longer supported.
Re: Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 07:30:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-01-07 21:30, David Nadlinger wrote: I don't know the current relative market share of the different OS X versions on top of my head either, but as we were getting a couple of bug reports from people who had tried to use LDC 2 on 10.6 (before we figured out that LLVM doesn't emulate TLS there), I guess it's too soon to drop support for it still. However, when finally somebody finds the time to implement shared library support in the runtime, the situation might have already changed anyway. In general Apple tries to push you to have always have the latest software. There are very few reasons to not have the latest OS, they are pretty darn cheap. Mandatory : http://www.gizmodo.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/update_for_your_computer.jpg
