On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:18:05 +0000 Solomon E via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> I do know about how to use GCC and where the documentation for > that is. I know what .o files and .a files are in terms of GCC > for C, because there's tons of documentation about that. I > thought that there might be a little bit of documentation about > what they are for D, or a specification. as for D... they are compiled object files. exactly the same thing as for c++, gnu pascal or any other language in GCC that produces .o. are you expecting them to be something special? then you'll read about that in gdc manpage. > A language that's about > "grokking" things (I've read Stranger in a Strange Land, so I > "grok" what it means) is not the sort of language that I want to > use. I prefer that a language that specifies what a computer is > to do be specified itself. That is all. how this belongs to particular D compiler? you are *expected* to understand what is "being part of GCC suite" for GNU D compiler. it's not about language at all, it's about toolchain. and this is not the only one compiler available, and there inevitably will be more. do you expecting to read about every specific compiler implementation in language dox? DMD happens to be special one 'cause it's a "reference compiler" for D. yet there is nothing special in DMD, it's an ordinary command-line compiler. if you know how to use one of them, you know how to use all of them. > I don't want to use an IDE that pretends to have AI about what to > do for me, just because a language doesn't have enough > documentation to let me know what to do for myself. should D documentation include all all POSIX documentation for core utils, 'cause some of them can be needed to work with source files? and for VIM, and for Emacs and for all other editors, 'cause, ahem, they can be used to edit D sources? you are *expected* to know how your system works, what "file" and "directory" is, what is "compiling to object file", what is "linking" and so on. if there is something that deviates from common system way of doing things, only then it is documented. like gdc-specific command line arguments. > In this case it's about the > tiny amount of documentation for GDC, which assumes that users > will know about using GCC for C or C++ and will apply a diff of > how D differs from those to use it for D. it's the easiest way to describe such things. i don't see how it is necessary to copy and paste all GCC documentation for gdc. > In other cases I've > seen all over the "Language Reference" it's the same thing: D is > described roughly as a diff of C and C++ you realised that language reference is not meant for those who learning how to program, didn't you? there is the excellent book by Ali Çehreli which is not "diff" and targeted to those who learning D, for example. and then you are expected to read documentation for GCC if you are planning to use gdc, as gdc is a part of GCC. there is nothing unsusual in not finding the information you want if you are looking for it in the wrong place. physics textbook will not start with teaching you simple math.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
