On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:59:54 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get
wrong?
Syntax highlighting requires only minimal lexer. Code completion
should be done out of process in order to easily restart it if it
overuses memory.
To be back on topic :
What about trying crowdfunding to pay a few developers to build
an IDE for D ?
What about Digital Mars doing it ?
Where is the video with Walter and Andrei asking for
contributions ?
On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 09:51:17 UTC, marcpmichel wrote:
To be back on topic :
What about trying crowdfunding to pay a few developers to build
an IDE for D ?
What about Digital Mars doing it ?
Where is the video with Walter and Andrei asking for
contributions ?
The MonoD developer is
On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 14:06:10 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
The MonoD developer is accepting donations:
http://mono-d.alexanderbothe.com/
I my mind, such a crowdfunded IDE for D, announced by Walter and
Andrei, should be written in D.
It could be the necessary bootstrap for such a big
On 21/05/14 02:16, Max Barraclough wrote:
The DMD frontend is licensed under the GPL, which is 'viral': if
your code links against it, you'll have to release your code as
GPL.
There's no need to link with DMD.
Strictly, John is right in that the GPL doesn't prevent you from
charging for your
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 00:16:07 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
The DMD frontend is licensed under the GPL, which is 'viral': if
your code links against it, you'll have to release your code as
GPL.
Not true, the DMD frontend is dual-licensed, both GPL and the
Artistic license:
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 07:50:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't think John was talking about linking against dmd, merely
having the user download and run it standalone, which the GPL
doesn't prohibit.
You can modify a GPL'ed compiler to work as a stand alone server
with shared memory
On 21/05/14 09:50, Joakim wrote:
Yes, but they moved to the UIUC-licensed (basically the BSD
license) llvm eventually, partially because they wanted Xcode to
directly link against it. I think it's that kind of integration
that Andre and Max have in mind, though as John noted, they're
not
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:25:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 21/05/14 09:50, Joakim wrote:
Yes, but they moved to the UIUC-licensed (basically the BSD
license) llvm eventually, partially because they wanted Xcode
to
directly link against it. I think it's that kind of
integration
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 01:53:57 UTC, ed wrote:
Yet more GPL bashing? This is getting very boring these days.
No, I'm not *bashing*. Were I the owner of DMD, the restrictions
facilitated by the GPL are exactly what I'd want.
I think we're agreed here really, ed.
On Wednesday, 21 May
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 22:50:45 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 20:44:57 UTC, Andre wrote:
Hi,
I like D due to its clear syntax and power. For a business
application developer what is really missing is a full blown
IDE which enables
Rapid Application Development.
=
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:17:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
You can modify a GPL'ed compiler to work as a stand alone
server with shared memory interface. You are allowed to
distribute it as a binary with other kinds of software. You
don't have to make source available unless the
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 10:52:34 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get
wrong?
Well, that's a pretty fundamental point, but it was a joke.
I think you're right - I'm not all that familiar with the
Artistic Licence, but it seems a better fit for
On 21/05/14 11:59, Max Barraclough wrote:
I assumed we were talking about using the frontend as a means to enable
syntax-highlighting and such, rather than simple invocation of the DMD
compiler, which of course wouldn't be a problem.
I assumed we weren't, since it's not really made for that.
On 21/05/14 12:02, John Colvin wrote:
Also, note that linking to GPL licenced shared libraries/dlls/dylibs or
whatever you use doesn't necessarily mean the GPL has got you wrapped in
it's rather fuzzy web. AKAIK it's a matter of debate and has never been
tested in court
As far as I know, if
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 10:52:34 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know about that last point, and I'm not about to reread
the GPL to find out, but sure, it's all a matter of how tightly
you link against GPL code.
Shared memory, pipelines etc are not linking… If you exchange
data you are ok as
Hi,
I like D due to its clear syntax and power. For a business application
developer what is really missing is a full blown IDE which enables
Rapid Application Development.
= GUI
= Database
= Internet components
= Refactoring
= ... and a lot things more
If I compare the time I need to develop
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 20:44:57 UTC, Andre wrote:
Hi,
I like D due to its clear syntax and power. For a business
application developer what is really missing is a full blown
IDE which enables
Rapid Application Development.
= GUI
= Database
= Internet components
= Refactoring
= ... and a
The DMD frontend is licensed under the GPL, which is 'viral': if
your code links against it, you'll have to release your code as
GPL.
Strictly, John is right in that the GPL doesn't prevent you from
charging for your code, but seeing as that code will be GPL'ed,
anyone who buys it will then be
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 00:16:07 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
The DMD frontend is licensed under the GPL, which is 'viral': if
your code links against it, you'll have to release your code as
GPL.
Strictly, John is right in that the GPL doesn't prevent you from
charging for your code, but
20 matches
Mail list logo
