On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 23:04:09 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 20:44:57 UTC, Jerry wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 19:10:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 18:59:21 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 18:42:07 UTC, Bo wrote:
There is a issue with Windows. The whole attacking the
messenger, the whole idiotic argumentation's that Windows
is dying, it is all pure useless trolling the people who
ask a simple questions: How to solve the D 64bit issue so
that like on the Linux or OSx platform, the users can have
the SAME level of consistency.
Windows 32 bit is the special one - it is the ONLY platform
where D works out of the box without additional downloads.
That's one reason why I advocate it for just playing around
- it just works.
Yes i works when toying around, but as soon as you want to
write actual software then you can't write 32 bit anymore,
because OPTLINK is just too buggy and will end up not being
able to link your code correctly.
A good example is that mysql-native currently don't link
properly with OPTLINK. It might link for some, but at least
for me; I'm forced to either use an older compiler or compile
to 64 bit.
See:
https://github.com/mysql-d/mysql-native/issues/100
There's also reported issues like this one:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15183
I'm aware that issues like these should be reported more
often and as soon as they're discovered, but they're also
hard to report, because you get virtually no information
about what's wrong and you can only guess by commenting out
sections of your code until it will link.
That's not ideal.
I'm sure many other similar issues exists.
Yes, 32 bit development with D is easy on Windows, but only
for toying around; which is no reason to defend it.
You can use -m32mscoff for 32-bit, which uses Visual Studio
like the 64-bit version. I've been saying OPTLINK should be
removed. Even if you report a bug for optlink, it's never
going to get fixed. No one's stupid enough to go digging
through that spaghetti code dump. If you're luck, some
limitation might introduced to DMD that won't cause the bug in
OPTLINK to trigger. That's why it shouldn't be supported
anymore, it's hindering DMD, not making it better.
It's amazing how many people are so lazy to download Visual
Studio, and some of the stupidest reason for not wanting to
download it to boot.
It's not that people don't want to get Visual Studio, but some
people have limited space.
Ex. until a few months ago I was actually developing all my
stuff on a Windows tablet which only had 30gb of space (The OS
etc. also took of those 30 gb.) It would have been impossible
for me to get Visual Studio on it, at least if I wanted to use
it for anything else.
Of course it's not a problem for me at the moment as I have a
laptop, but at the time it was the only thing I had. At least I
didn't get by any bugs in OPTLINK back then, else it would have
been impossible for me to actually write D code.
Well a tablet isn't really for development. Even a cheap laptop
would be better for development. You can't really do much of
anything with that little space. I don't think the focus should
be people with niche development hardware like tablets. If you do
enough CTFE the RAM usage of DMD shoots through the roof and
you'd end up not having enough RAM to compile anyways. Let alone
if you have enough ram but still use the 32-bit version of DMD
and hit that limit.
