On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 18:25:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/9/2012 9:37 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
The procedure is 'get it done' approach. Meld helps alot,
not having
too many differences between the frontends helps alot, using
the D2
testsuite at every stage of the process helps alot.
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:zhapcktjpldxzejor...@forum.dlang.org...
Now, I get the annoyance in not distributing it (without
permission) - it bugs me with the D- JS fork too.
Huh? The D - JS fork has no need for the backend. Just cut it out and
distribute
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 14:28:26 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Huh? The D - JS fork has no need for the backend. Just cut
it out and
distribute as you like!
So far, I've found that easier said than done!
Perhaps if I really sat down and worked it it'd be better
though but it is just
On 5/9/2012 9:35 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Just as well, I guess: Even if I had one today, it'd probably be quite
awhile before I'd even have the time to play with it anyway. And if I do get
time, there's a VM image of it you can download and play with (which I got
and still haven't looked at
On 5/9/2012 9:37 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
The procedure is 'get it done' approach. Meld helps alot, not having
too many differences between the frontends helps alot, using the D2
testsuite at every stage of the process helps alot.
I don't know what I'd do without meld these days. It's one of
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
On 5/9/2012 9:35 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Just as well, I guess: Even if I had one today, it'd probably be quite
awhile before I'd even have the time to play with it anyway. And if I do
get
time, there's a VM
On 5/12/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
I've always wanted a computer that had no fan and used only a handful of
watts.
I've been using a Trimslice (
On 5/12/2012 8:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/12/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
I've always wanted a computer that had no fan and used only a handful of
watts.
I've
On Sunday, 13 May 2012 at 03:33:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/12/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
I've always wanted a computer that had no fan and used only
a handful
On 10/05/12 21:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:16:10 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Is that an issue for LLVM, which is BSD-licensed? I will understand if the
answer is, I don't care, I don't even want to risk it.
You'll have to talk to Walter if you want to know what
On 10/05/12 03:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If nothing else, because Walter would be unable to work on it. He avoids
looking at the source for any other compilers, because doing so could cause
him legal issues when working on dmd/dmc's backend, which he does
professionally. And given that Walter
On 10/05/12 02:36, Brad Roberts wrote:
You're reading something other than what I said. Develop against doesn't
imply leave it forked.
I didn't mean to imply that. It's just that if I develop against GDC's Phobos,
I risk clashing with simultaneous updates to the one developed against the
On 2012-05-10 06:09, Era Scarecrow wrote:
I'd prefer to see LLVM used as the back end; mostly based on emerging
technologies and it's likely a bit cleaner than GNU.
So do I.
Anyways. If the community wants to buy the rights so we can free it, I
guess it's just a matter of collecting the
Le 10/05/2012 06:35, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Joseph Rushton Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote in message
news:mailman.476.1336601495.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 09/05/12 23:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Especially if/when we finally get good support for ARM-based phones
On 2012-05-10 01:08, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I don't understand why the project couldn't (or wouldn't) simply bless
GDC or LDC as the reference implementation. I do see why in the short
term, as finalizing/stabilizing the front end, runtime and development
library are much
On 10/05/12 05:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, that's what FUD does. It creates Fear Uncertainty and Doubt without
being backed by facts. It just creates damage. So, the situation itself
shouldn't be a problem, but people keep bringing it up anyway, which _does_
cause us problems.
If
On 10/05/12 10:18, deadalnix wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 06:35, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Really? ARM servers? This is the first I've heard of it. (Intel must be
crapping themselves.)
ARM is more energy efficient than x86 . This is a more and more serious
alternative for datacenters.
Yea, it's in
On 2012-05-10 04:09:28 +, Era Scarecrow rtcv...@yahoo.com said:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:40:54 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
It's a crazy idea I know, but maybe we could, as a community, buy the
rights from Symantec. Blender was a close-source program originally
and the open-source
On 2012-05-10 13:32, Michel Fortin wrote:
In my opinion, the front end would gain much by being a standalone
library: same library could be used with separate glue code for each
backend. It'd also help to have a single druntime being shared between
all those. I can always dream…
I completely
On Thu, 10 May 2012 00:42:26 -0400
Nick Sabalausky seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
LDC would need to get their Windows support into a usable state for
that to happen. Last I checked (admittedly awhile ago), there didn't
seem to be any movement in that direction.
I heard 3.1 is
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:03:01 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Re friends: I always think it's a good idea to have lots, and from as
diverse a range of backgrounds as possible. I just don't see what
_good_ it does to have the backend non-OS, given the
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 13:09:10 UTC, Gour wrote:
I heard 3.1 is improving things and that should be soon...
Wow
---
DW2 Exception Handling is enabled on Cygwin and MinGW
---
I wonder whether linux code for emitting dwarf exception tables
will work out of the box on windows... and where
On 10/05/12 11:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Assuming that LLVM is not an acceptable backend despite its permissive
licence, and that the community can't buy out the code, I'd suggest
again the idea of stabilizing the frontend and then synchronizing DMD,
GDC and LDC updates, with all 3
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:24:53PM +0200, Don Clugston wrote:
On 10/05/12 11:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Assuming that LLVM is not an acceptable backend despite its
permissive licence, and that the community can't buy out the code,
I'd suggest again the idea of stabilizing the frontend
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:16:10 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 03:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If nothing else, because Walter would be unable to work on it. He avoids
looking at the source for any other compilers, because doing so could
cause
him legal issues when working
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:03:15 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
2. Walter does not want to taint his knowledge of compilers
with some
other backend that would potentially harm his ability to write
closed-source code for profit. He is very adamant about this.
That's what I would have
On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:03:48 -0400, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at
wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:03:15 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think the only real solution is for someone to write a good backend
for
D from scratch, and then assign the appropriate rights to Walter.
On 10 May 2012 12:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.netwrote:
On 10/05/12 10:18, deadalnix wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 06:35, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Really? ARM servers? This is the first I've heard of it. (Intel must be
crapping themselves.)
ARM is more energy efficient
Hi,
Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new native
languages and it mentions
D.
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_helq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
Unfortunely the editor also points out that D is not fully open
On 5/8/2012 11:12 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_helq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/te6xv/d_go_vala_and_rust_a_new_generation_of_native/
Le 09/05/2012 08:12, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
Hi,
Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new native
languages and it mentions
D.
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_helq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
Unfortunely the editor also
Le 09/05/2012 13:29, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 10:43:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 08:12, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
Hi,
Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new native
languages and it mentions
D.
On 09/05/12 13:29, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 10:43:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
DMD's backend isn't open source.
I know that, but DMD is only the reference compiler.
... only!
While this is an unfortunate situation, there are other D compilers available,
which are fully
On 9 May 2012 17:20, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
[1] I'm not sure of the status of LDC regarding D2 -- I have the impression
that GDC is further ahead and has developed better procedures for
integrating updates to the D frontend ... ?
The procedure is 'get it
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 16:20:55 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
One way round the situation might be to try and coordinate
releases of DMD, GDC and LDC[1] so that they are
feature-equivalent and have passed the same set of tests, with
official announcements giving equal weight and
deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jodll6$14eu$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the
process. And we are not here yet.
How so?
Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
deadalnixdeadal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jodll6$14eu$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the
process. And we are not here yet.
How so?
We have a botleneck in accepting
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 06:12:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Hi,
Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new
native languages and it mentions
D.
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_helq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:58:14 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the langage that
require to change the backend too ?
There's nothing stopping that right now!
The only thing the backend license really prohibits is
distributing it yourself.
On Wed, 9 May 2012, =?UTF-8?B?Ik1pY2hhw6ts?=.Larouche@MISSING_DOMAIN wrote:
What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the
langage that require to change the backend too ?
You do exactly what'd you do with any other github project.. fork, change,
send pull request.
The backend of dmd
On 2012-05-09 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
How so?
We have a botleneck in accepting contributions.
* There's no road map
* No release schedule
* No overall goal
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 09/05/12 19:24, David Nadlinger wrote:
This would be great, but at least for LDC, the biggest problem at the moment in
that regard is manpower –currently, most of us primarily work on it whenever it
doesn't compile our own projects (and when specific bug reports come in,
obviously). This
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:00:45 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:58:14 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the langage that
require to change the backend too ?
There's nothing stopping that right now!
The only thing the
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:37:09 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-09 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
How so?
We have a botleneck in accepting contributions.
* There's no road map
* No release schedule
* No overall goal
While those may be negative, I don't see how their lack makes the
On 09/05/12 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
deadalnixdeadal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jodll6$14eu$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the
process. And we are not here yet.
How so?
We have a
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly code)
available whatsoever?
It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD that
*ONLY* contains code you want to put in there. SNN.lib /has/ to
be in there... and it's certainly not FOSS...
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly code)
available whatsoever?
It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD that *ONLY*
contains code you want to put in there. SNN.lib /has/ to be
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad
wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly
code) available whatsoever?
It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD
On 09/05/12 22:51, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete FUD.
No, you can't redstribute it yourself, but it's completely open for viewing,
editing, and contributing.
Well, the backend licence fails to meet the standards of the Free
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:10 -0400, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com
wrote:
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly code)
Le 09/05/2012 22:00, Adam D. Ruppe a écrit :
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:58:14 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the langage that require
to change the backend too ?
There's nothing stopping that right now!
The only thing the backend license really
Le 09/05/2012 23:29, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:10 -0400, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad wfunct...@hotmail.com
wrote:
What about SNN.lib,
On 09/05/12 23:06, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So... Use GDC instead?
... and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)
[cf. what I was told here ...
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Hacking_on_Phobos_34765.html#N34770
]
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote in message
news:mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The reason for proposing this is that currently if I wish to hack on
Druntime or Phobos, I _have_ to use DMD. True parity of the open-source
compilers
Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software,
with corresponding effects on the possible channels of contribution. The
ability to scale up the
Le 09/05/2012 23:38, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Maybe, but I suspect most not OSS complaints would be coming from people
who don't even know that much about D, and are just knee-jerking over The
main compiler's backend isn't OSS?!? Well fuck that, then!
'Course, I have zero evidence to back up
On 09/05/12 23:47, deadalnix wrote:
And even more practical : I can't bundle dmd with an IDE for D to provide an
easy setup for a user. I can't create a repository where dmd sit in to make it
easy t install on linux. This make it harder for beginner to get started with D.
Actually, You can't
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:qlxeqfqyzlezwqerr...@forum.dlang.org...
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:58:14 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the langage that require
to change the backend too ?
There's nothing
On 09/05/12 23:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote in message
news:mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The reason for proposing this is that currently if I wish to hack on
Druntime or Phobos, I _have_ to use DMD. True
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 17:52:39 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(since the prior approval
is only required because *his* hands are tied on that matter by...uhh...was
it Borland?),
Semantec. They own the backend that dmd uses.
- Jonathan M Davis
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:33:16 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I'm sorry but one would invest time in something he isn't even
sure to be able to use himself.
Of course you can use it yourself! That's personal use,
not distribution.
Now, I get the annoyance in not distributing it (without
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:59:11 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly
code) available whatsoever?
Well, the source is available if you buy it. $45 I think.
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:47:57 deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software,
with corresponding effects on the possible
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:39:36 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 09/05/12 23:06, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So... Use GDC instead?
and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)
[cf. what I was told here ...
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:00:16 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 09/05/12 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
deadalnixdeadal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jodll6$14eu$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't
On 10/05/12 00:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:39:36 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)
For what purpose? To get it included in phobos/druntime? DMD.
Well, yes, that's my point.
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:49:34 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 23:38, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
Maybe, but I suspect most not OSS complaints would be coming from
people
who don't even know that much about D, and are just knee-jerking over
The
main compiler's backend
On 10/05/12 00:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The only thing that isn't fully open source is the dmd backend, and dmd gets
more pull requests than druntime and Phobos combined (it's also the project
with the biggest bottleneck, because _everything_ goes through Walter rather
than a small group of
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and
others who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is
possible.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really
On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite as the
community scales up in size.
I'll add one more thing on this: you probably don't know whether or not you're
missing out, as there's no real way you can measure the number
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite as the
community scales up in size.
I'll add one more thing on this: you probably don't know whether or not
On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and others
who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is possible.
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:53:37PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite
as the community scales up in size.
On 10/05/12 00:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But since that will never happen, it's a moot issue. It doesn't really matter
if we would have had 10 times as many people contributing (which I very much
doubt), Walter can't change the backend's license, so we're stuck with how
things are. There's
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:03:01AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
There are those who will refuse to use D because it's not copyleft.
Good luck getting those people on board ;)
Do you mean there are those who will refuse to use D if
On 05/10/12 01:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:53:37PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite
as the
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend with
new code that isn't entangled by the previous license?
It's a _ton_ of work for arguably little benefit. What we have for dmd works
just fine, and if you want a fully
On 10/05/12 01:14, H. S. Teoh wrote:
There are both. Some proprietary developers avoid GPL like the plague
due to the whole you must publish all your precious source code if you
distribute the binary issue. Some other developers, admittedly in the
minority compared to the first group, refuse to
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:16:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend
with new code that isn't entangled by the previous license?
It's a _ton_ of work for arguably little
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yesterday or the day before I pulled the latest Phobos into my dev branch and
tried to compile it, only for some unittests to fall over rather nastily. Of
course, it was because the latest Phobos updates relied on some recent updates
to DMD
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:31:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Right, so what's the reason behind not adopting gdc or ldc as
the reference compiler?
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
far.
dmd just works.
On 10/05/12 01:33, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
far.
Yes, but that's because right now they are playing perpetual catch-up with DMD.
With the frontend stabilized, it'll be a different situation.
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and
Le 10/05/2012 00:22, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:47:57 deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the
On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the gdc/ldc provided
druntime and phobos too.
No, that's a recipe for fragmentation. Phobos should be developed in consort
with the DMD frontend. The problem is that DMD frontend updates take time
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:47:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and also produces
significantly faster executables than DMD.
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:49:42 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:47:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
GDC works extremely well for me in general, and also produces
significantly faster executables than DMD.
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block
On 10/05/12 01:49, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
In my case, the easy way: it's available as a package in Ubuntu. :-)
Ubuntu 12.04 has GDC 4.6.3 in its repositories, 11.10 had 4.6.1 if I remember
correctly.
I haven't yet tried building it
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:33:39AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:31:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Right, so what's the reason behind not adopting gdc or ldc as the
reference compiler?
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got far.
dmd just works.
I
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:47:27AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 01:33, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Have you actually used them? I've tried and never got
far.
Yes, but that's because right now they are playing perpetual
catch-up with DMD. With the frontend stabilized, it'll be
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:59:27AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 01:49, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
How did you install it? That's the stumbling block for me.
In my case, the easy way: it's available as a package in Ubuntu. :-)
[...]
Yeah, I use Debian, and apt-get install
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the gdc/ldc provided
druntime and phobos too.
No, that's a recipe for fragmentation. Phobos should be developed in consort
with the DMD
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:28:43 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 01:43, Brad Roberts wrote:
If you're using ldc or gdc, you should develop agains the
gdc/ldc provided
druntime and phobos too.
No, that's a recipe for
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:32:34 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:16:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend
with new code that isn't entangled by the
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 01:08:34 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/05/12 00:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But since that will never happen, it's a moot issue. It doesn't really
matter if we would have had 10 times as many people contributing (which I
very much doubt), Walter can't change
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
crazy situations - an allegation of harassment still affects a teacher's
career, even if there's a
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:15:23PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much
complete FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
crazy situations - an allegation
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:15:23 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete
FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in those
crazy situations - an allegation of
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:35:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:15:23 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty
much complete
FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:40:54 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
It's a crazy idea I know, but maybe we could, as a community,
buy the rights from Symantec. Blender was a close-source
program originally and the open-source community raised money
to buy the source code from the defunct
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote in message
news:mailman.476.1336601495.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 09/05/12 23:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Especially if/when we finally get good support for ARM-based phones
and tablets (back in my day, we called them
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
