On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 06:57:52 UTC, Maxim Fomin
wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 23:11:24 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/24/2013 2:23 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 20:26:54 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/23/2013 10:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
DMC? A compiler which produces obsolete object format which is
not produced by anyone else and which is a reason of why dmd
users experience problems in windows platform?
All that might be true, however I feel like is not fair to
criticize DMC in such harsh words.
First, because one should judge a compiler wrt its pairs (of the
same age).
Second, because I think it was quite a breakthrough at its time,
and history should be respected, even if becomes obsolete (what
does not?). One should not criticize IBM PC for being obsolete
*today*.
Third, because it is real (and hard) work behind that DMC
compiler and it is available for free. Maybe not the latest, nor
the greatest, but is a contribution to the software world and
this should be appreciated. Besides, all work should be respected
and appreciated. It is hard to work, and it is even harder to
work hard.
Fourth, because it attracted C/C++ fans to D. It is my case: I
crawled the Internet back then in the search for a free C/C++
compiler, being a bit disappointed by Borland's (I think 5.5 was
"freed") suite, specifically... its error messages. I gave DMC a
try, then got caught into the D thing...
Fifth, because as obsolete as DMC might be, it provided Walter a
lot of experience and this lead him to D in the first place. Yes,
me too I would prefer main focus to shift on GDC or LDC but, at
the end of the day, I must acknowledge the fact that if DMC and
Walter did not exist, with all shortcomings of DMC, we'd have
today no GDC, nor LDC to complain about those not being given
priority.
Sixth, because from time to time we should express not only harsh
truths, but kindness. Kindness, too, is true. We are eager to be
harsh with others, but still we hope others to be kind with us.
