Re: Just one more thing...
Michel Fortin wrote: > On 2009-02-27 16:37:13 -0500, Jacob Carlborg said: > >> Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as >>> recent as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of >>> ignoring users of anything except the latest version, so I would >>> think that mac users would be accustomed to the old routine of their >>> OS becoming a deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this >>> case, I would think that there may actually be justification in >>> sticking with 10.5+, if you were to so choose. >> >> I would not completely agree with you on this. When you install the >> developer tools on osx 10.5 it installs SDKs for 10.5 and 10.4 as >> default, but you can also choose to install support for older >> versions. I'm not sure if it's only for 10.3 or also for 10.2. > > On Mac OS X 10.5, you can compile for 10.3 using Xcode 3, and 10.2 using > Xcode 2.5 (Xcode 2.5 for Leopard is a free download). Of course, 10.2 > and 10.3 being PowerPC-only, there's no point trying to compile DMD for > them. You can do that if and only if you don't require newer apis. If you've been reading this thread, you know that the runtime uses the posix thread apis and those are supported less and less well as you go back in time. The ability to support the old versions isn't some magic wand that conjures up new features into those old releases. Later, Brad
Re: Just one more thing...
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message news:go9me9$kg...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Walter Bright" wrote in message >> news:go88pa$1gu...@digitalmars.com... >>> Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: > Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. >>> Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is >>> worth the effort. >> >> Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as recent >> as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of ignoring >> users of anything except the latest version, so I would think that mac >> users would be accustomed to the old routine of their OS becoming a >> deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this case, I would >> think that there may actually be justification in sticking with 10.5+, if >> you were to so choose. > > I would not completely agree with you on this. When you install the > developer tools on osx 10.5 it installs SDKs for 10.5 and 10.4 as default, > but you can also choose to install support for older versions. I'm not > sure if it's only for 10.3 or also for 10.2. > > Then what about Carbon, Classic (don't know if this is still available) > and Rosetta, environments and libraries to support older applications. I was referring more to Apple's own software (which tends to be fairly important when using a mac). For instance I remember not being able to use XCode (instead of Project Builder) because I was on 10.2, and not being able to use certain parts of the "iLife" suite (or newer versions of them) because my OS was merely one point release behind (ie, only about 1.5 years old, at the time). But I dunno, maybe things have been changing since then.
Re: Just one more thing...
On 2009-02-27 16:37:13 -0500, Jacob Carlborg said: Nick Sabalausky wrote: Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as recent as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of ignoring users of anything except the latest version, so I would think that mac users would be accustomed to the old routine of their OS becoming a deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this case, I would think that there may actually be justification in sticking with 10.5+, if you were to so choose. I would not completely agree with you on this. When you install the developer tools on osx 10.5 it installs SDKs for 10.5 and 10.4 as default, but you can also choose to install support for older versions. I'm not sure if it's only for 10.3 or also for 10.2. On Mac OS X 10.5, you can compile for 10.3 using Xcode 3, and 10.2 using Xcode 2.5 (Xcode 2.5 for Leopard is a free download). Of course, 10.2 and 10.3 being PowerPC-only, there's no point trying to compile DMD for them. Then what about Carbon, Classic (don't know if this is still available) and Rosetta, environments and libraries to support older applications. Classic is no longer supported on Leopard, and was never supported on Intel Macs. Apple keeps old application running on newer versions of the operating system -- I can run apps I made for 10.0 on Leopard -- but their developer tools are limited to a few operating systems back. -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: >> >> in our case resources we are initializing are unrelated to the >> modules we are importing. and semantically the code is placed in >> modules as it should be. > > True, often there isn't an actual dependency on the order, but the compiler > can't tell that. I was going to say "can't it?" but then remembered separate compilation. Sigh. I think the separate compilation paradigm, at least as designed for C and C++, has to go the way of the dodo for lots of cool things to be made possible. The thread on .D about not being able to non-virtualize methods in the face of separate compilation is another example.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: in our case resources we are initializing are unrelated to the modules we are importing. and semantically the code is placed in modules as it should be. True, often there isn't an actual dependency on the order, but the compiler can't tell that.
Re: New tango conference movies
On 2009-02-25 20:55:09 +0100, Peter Modzelewski said: Sorry for not giving any signs of life for so long but new job made me all occupied and I had little time to do anything else. But here I am - back with bunch of goodies: http://petermodzelewski.blogspot.com/2009/02/tango-conference-2008-rolling-dice.html http://petermodzelewski.blogspot.com/2009/02/tango-conference-2008-ldc.html You can download the slides from: team0xf.com/conference/rollingDiceTesting.pdf team0xf.com/conference/LDC.pdf Enjoy! Thanks Keyer! For those interested the randomized testing framework is part of blip: http://dsource.org/projects/blip Fawzi
Re: Just one more thing...
Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Walter Bright" wrote in message news:go88pa$1gu...@digitalmars.com... Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is worth the effort. Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as recent as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of ignoring users of anything except the latest version, so I would think that mac users would be accustomed to the old routine of their OS becoming a deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this case, I would think that there may actually be justification in sticking with 10.5+, if you were to so choose. I would not completely agree with you on this. When you install the developer tools on osx 10.5 it installs SDKs for 10.5 and 10.4 as default, but you can also choose to install support for older versions. I'm not sure if it's only for 10.3 or also for 10.2. Then what about Carbon, Classic (don't know if this is still available) and Rosetta, environments and libraries to support older applications.
Re: New tango conference movies
> But here I am - > back with bunch of goodies: > > http://petermodzelewski.blogspot.com/2009/02/tango-conference-2008- rolling-dice.html > http://petermodzelewski.blogspot.com/2009/02/tango-conference-2008- ldc.html Thanks a lot! Christian
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
On 2009-02-27 21:49:58 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed said: On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright said: Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: Now we have to make a manual init function called from class constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is inconsistent.. One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a bit. I fully agree, *avoiding* circular dependencies between modules is in general a good practice: a circular dependency it means that you have tight coupling, in in that case it is normally better to have everything in the same module to have a better control on it. Sometime one has cases in which circular dependencies arise, two ways to get rid of them are for example: 1) define and interface, the circular dependency is in the interfaces that are described in the same module, the two (or more) modules include the interfaces, and are not directly dependent on each other (only through the interfaces) 2) use templates, the circular dependencies are on a template parameter. The circular dependencies arise only upon instantiation
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright said: Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: Now we have to make a manual init function called from class constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is inconsistent.. One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a bit. I fully agree, circular dependencies between modules is in general a good practice: a circular dependency it means that you have tight coupling, in in that case it is normally better to have everything in the same module to have a better control on it. Sometime one has cases in which circular dependencies arise, two ways to get rid of them are for example: 1) define and interface, the circular dependency is in the interfaces that are described in the same module, the two (or more) modules include the interfaces, and are not directly dependent on each other (only through the interfaces) 2) use templates, the circular dependencies are on a template parameter. The circular dependencies arise only upon instantiation
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Walter Bright Wrote: > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: > > Now we have to make a manual init function called from class > > constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with > > cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this > > is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of > > cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is > > inconsistent.. > > One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever > possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a > source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to > have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a bit. in our case resources we are initializing are unrelated to the modules we are importing. and semantically the code is placed in modules as it should be.
Re: Just one more thing...
Nick Sabalausky wrote: Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as recent as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of ignoring users of anything except the latest version, so I would think that mac users would be accustomed to the old routine of their OS becoming a deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this case, I would think that there may actually be justification in sticking with 10.5+, if you were to so choose. It's really a matter of the number of users who are not upgrading vs the effort involved in supporting them. With Windows its very easy to support 15 years worth of Windows operating systems, so there's no reason not to. But there seems to be a different tradeoff at work for the Mac.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: Now we have to make a manual init function called from class constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is inconsistent.. One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a bit.
Re: Just one more thing...
"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:go88pa$1gu...@digitalmars.com... > Anders F Björklund wrote: >> Walter Bright wrote: >> >>> Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? >> >> It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", >> then we can play the same game all over again. > > Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is > worth the effort. Ordinarily, I detest the idea of pulling support for anything as recent as just a few years old. But Apple themselves has a habit of ignoring users of anything except the latest version, so I would think that mac users would be accustomed to the old routine of their OS becoming a deadend the moment a new version comes out. So, in this case, I would think that there may actually be justification in sticking with 10.5+, if you were to so choose. But, to be fair, I did stop being a mac user a long time ago (10.2, tabby, or ocelot, or kitty-cat, or whatever the hell arbitrary feline name that was), so my opinion on this matter probably doesn't count for much. Feel free to take it or ignore it as you will.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Walter Bright Wrote: > Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov > > wrote: > >> We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with > >> cyclic imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not > >> really acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed? > >> > > > > I'll save Walter the trouble: come up with a reproduceable testcase > > if you haven't already. It won't get fixed it he can't tell what the > > problem is. > > > I'll add to that my experience is that if the test case is incomplete, > then I need to guess at the rest and fill it in. Often, then the test > case works, and there's a cycle of "I can't reproduce the problem" > followed by the missing bit of context that was the real cause. > > Then once the problem gets fixed, the reproducible test case goes into > the test suite so it stays fixed. I'm sorry, my mistake - it's in specs http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/module.html >Cycles (circular dependencies) in the import declarations are allowed as long >as not both of the modules contain static constructors or static destructors. >Violation of this rule will result in a runtime exception. Now we have to make a manual init function called from class constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is inconsistent..
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Jarrett Billingsley wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed? I'll save Walter the trouble: come up with a reproduceable testcase if you haven't already. It won't get fixed it he can't tell what the problem is. I'll add to that my experience is that if the test case is incomplete, then I need to guess at the rest and fill it in. Often, then the test case works, and there's a cycle of "I can't reproduce the problem" followed by the missing bit of context that was the real cause. Then once the problem gets fixed, the reproducible test case goes into the test suite so it stays fixed.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: > We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic > imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really > acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed? > I'll save Walter the trouble: come up with a reproduceable testcase if you haven't already. It won't get fixed it he can't tell what the problem is.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed?
Re: Just one more thing...
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, John Stoneham wrote: > Anders F Björklund Wrote: >> DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, >> after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). > > Development on GDC appears to have stopped in 2007. LDC certainly has some > life in it and looks promising. I will definitely have to check it out. > > However, even if LDC becomes stable on all platforms, it's still not the > official reference implementation. That would be DMD. I think it's very > important for the official DMD compiler to support the 3 major platforms, and > I'm very excited (caught the typo that time :) that OS X has been included. > LDC is based on DMD. They share the same frontend.
Re: Just one more thing...
Anders F Björklund Wrote: > DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, > after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). Development on GDC appears to have stopped in 2007. LDC certainly has some life in it and looks promising. I will definitely have to check it out. However, even if LDC becomes stable on all platforms, it's still not the official reference implementation. That would be DMD. I think it's very important for the official DMD compiler to support the 3 major platforms, and I'm very excited (caught the typo that time :) that OS X has been included.
Re: Just one more thing...
Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. And at that point Apple will drop support for 10.4.
Re: Just one more thing...
Fawzi Mohamed wrote: On 2009-02-27 09:38:02 +0100, Walter Bright said: Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is worth the effort. the worst offender (semaphores) are broken also on 10.5, I had to implement them on the top of mach semaphores in tango. This isn't likely to change any time soon. There is the old sys/sem.h or whatever (from the XOpen spec), but the interface just stinks.
Re: Just one more thing...
On 2009-02-27 09:38:02 +0100, Walter Bright said: Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is worth the effort. the worst offender (semaphores) are broken also on 10.5, I had to implement them on the top of mach semaphores in tango.
Re: Just one more thing...
On 2009-02-27 09:43:12 +0100, Walter Bright said: Anders F Björklund wrote: DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). D2 needed to get there, too. Yes, I am very happy about this, now I might start playing with D 2.0 (in the spare time). But the wxD samples built successfully* with all three... Great!
Re: Just one more thing...
Walter Bright wrote: DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). D2 needed to get there, too. I get them confused all the time, with D meaning DMD or D2. --anders
Re: Just one more thing...
Anders F Björklund wrote: DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). D2 needed to get there, too. But the wxD samples built successfully* with all three... Great!
Re: Just one more thing...
Anders F Björklund wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. Yeah, but 10.5 has working posix threads. It's doubtful whether 10.4 is worth the effort.
Re: Just one more thing...
Walter Bright wrote: Can you upgrade to 10.5 ? It's only a few months left to "Snow Leopard", then we can play the same game all over again. --anders
Re: Just one more thing...
John Stoneham wrote: I'm really looking forward to using D on OS X. As Tank said in the Matirx, it's a very exiting time! There seems to be typos there, I think you mean "DMD" :-) DMD is now the third D compiler to make it to Mac OS X, after GDC and LDC before it (based on same front-end). Anyway, it's just minor symbol issues left - "hello.d" even limps along if you stub the missing symbol for it. But the wxD samples built successfully* with all three... --anders * on Mac OS X 10.5, that was
