On 6/9/15 1:53 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 03:41:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 20:23:17 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068
because of, simply put, insufficient resources.
Why is that?
A first test release does not seem to be further away than, say, full
rangeification of Phobos.
Answered earlier in the thread:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mkibq1$aj9$1...@digitalmars.com
That's not a full answer. I worked with Daniel to get LDC to
successfully compile DDMD the Saturday after DConf, which is part of the
reason why we can confidently make the 20% claim in the first place
(i.e., be sure that is not a C++ vs D issue).
Still, I'm confident that getting a LDC release ready would be less work
than, say, properly refactoring all of Phobos to avoid allocations by
using ranges.
Yah, well, both need doing.
Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of
people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically
important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps
of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me as rather
schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are
quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts.
Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow
a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I
don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply
that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional
double-think.
Welcome to my world, we have a table for you right here, sir.
The point is there, just a couple of things that don't sit well:
"schizophrenic", "dishonest", "delusional". What's at work here is
simple psychology applied to normal and well-meaning human beings, not
scheming sociopaths.
Andrei
