On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 07:12 +, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 3 June 2016 at 03:17:56 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> > > It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)
> >
> >
> > GDC is actively
On Friday, 3 June 2016 at 03:17:56 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)
GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest
features if more developers come, what would happen
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)
GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest features
if more developers come, what would happen if it would be the
reference compiler.
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:09:15 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:54:10 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC,
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:54:10 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the
restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1,
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the
restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status
is that because some parts have been written by
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the
restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status
is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he
was employed by Symantec, it can't get an
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:
I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but
considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may
eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point
differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 01:26:53 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch
Linux for a while and it was a
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:
I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but
considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may
eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point
differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch
Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to
use LDC when and if I need
I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but
considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may
eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ
enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD
backend its own thing?
Or are all the
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
>
> No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux
> for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC
> when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to
> compile as
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap
inherent in the structure of these compilers or can there be an
LDC mode which compiles as rapidly as DMD?
The difference in time between LDC and DMD is in the machine code
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said
Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?
This is why LDC should be seen in the D
On 05/31/2016 11:32 AM, Michael wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[...]
LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent in
the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
The case for DMD though is compile speed. It really changes the
way one writes programs and makes it possible to write bash
script-like functionality in D because of a
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said
Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said
Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?
This is why LDC should be seen in the D
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main
production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for
compilation.
Agreed. Especially, LDC supports more platform.
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec
> isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?
This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main
production toolchain, and Dub should default
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the
restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status
is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he
was employed by Symantec, it can't get an
Hi,
this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the
restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is
that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was
employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license.
When I read the backend license [4], I read
24 matches
Mail list logo
