Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
How does this build tool handle projects with multiple executables ? For example the util-linux package contains dozens of utilities or a project might have a CLI and a GUI version. Or there might be slight alterations like setting a version or debug flag: -debug=threading -version=demo -- Marco
Re: dlibgit updated to libgit2 v0.19.0
Am 27.06.2013 00:01, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: > On 6/26/13, Sönke Ludwig wrote: >> I've been using dlibgit since some time > > Btw, I'm curious what kind of work you've done using dlibgit (if it's > ok to ask)? It's a CI server that heavily relies on GIT and DUB to provide an almost configuration free experience. It's still WIP and just planned for internal use for now, though. > >> I've already registered a fork with (partially) updated bindings for the >> master version of libgit2: http://registry.vibed.org/packages/dlibgit > > I saw some of your commits now. I'm happy to see that we no longer > need bitfields in v0.19.0, and it seems most of the inline functions > in libgit2 are gone, making porting easier. Those libgit devs are > doing a great job. > Indeed, it is nice to see the progress, also in terms of functionality and stability and even though they changed half of the API since the last release. The only thing that is lacking is the high level documentation (and sometimes the API docs). I had to do a lot of research and reverse engineering to be able to do some slightly more advanced things (mostly related to submodules). A nice higher level D API on top would be a godsend for new users. > On 6/26/13, Sönke Ludwig wrote: >> Great to hear. I've been using dlibgit since some time and actually I've >> already registered a fork with (partially) updated bindings for the >> master version of libgit2: http://registry.vibed.org/packages/dlibgit > > Ah, didn't know that. For now you may want to hold on to that package > until I port the v0.17 samples to v0.19, to verify the new bindings > work properly. Ok, I'll also test them on our stuff when I get the time. > > Btw, the reason why I've moved everything under the "git.c" package is > because at some point I want to implement either a class or > struct-based D API around the C API, so it's easier to use from client > code. > > The new D API will use modules such as "git.branch" while the C-based > API "git.c.branch". That sounds great. I wonder if it makes sense to make a separate Deimos package for the C bindings?
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 23:03:40 UTC, Graham St Jack wrote: This isn't a build tool for everyone, but it really does make a big difference on big projects. Well I'm noticing some interesting concepts, such as being able to associate an include or import file with the library to link in, so that it gets done automatically simply by using the include/import file, great idea assuming I understood that correctly. One thing you may want to consider, or maybe this is already possible, is add the ability to optionally specify something like *.d so that all .d files get included from a folder, rather than have to always individually specify them manually. Also more concise documentation with clearer examples would be invaluable. I'm currently unsure if I need to restructure my existing project folders to fit bub or if bub can be configured to fit my existing projects. --rt
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
Am Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:26:01 +0200 schrieb "eles" : > On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 07:32:32 UTC, eles wrote: > > CTRL-Z works for me. I think it expects input. > > Ignore it. It just suspends it. You might want to check how many programs you thought to have "killed" like this so far in your running session. It might eat up your RAM. -- Marco
Re: An idea - make dlang.org a fundation
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 21:39:28 UTC, ixid wrote: -You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on D. This doesn't work as it's a volunteer project. Why should someone get paid when others give their time for free? It would create conflict while being a less effective application of funds, D already gets more than one or two people years of effort per year. A better use of the money is another D conference which has been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater interest and exposure for D. I don't think paying people should be out of the question, if there was money available. There are often jobs that need doing on a project the size of D that aren't fun, stimlating or interesting, but are still absolutely necessary. Trawling through documentation for any errors/omissions etc. comes to mind. These tasks could be split up in to manageable chunks and offered as freelance contracts for a modest but reasonable wage, dependant on urgency, technical skill needed etc. E.g. If someone would pay me even as little as $15-20 an hour to go through phobos enforcing the style guide everywhere or chasing up old bugs in bugzilla, I would happily put in a few hours a week. For a student that sort of money goes a long way. (Not suggesting that paying per hour is a good idea necessarily, just illustrating the point with an example)
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:24:27 +0200, Dicebot wrote: > Hm, bub.. Sounds like it should work with 'dub' nicely ;) Maybe so... > > Looks promising and I'd really love to see some build tool other then > rdmd getting to the point it can be called standard. Makefile's > sometimes are just too inconvenient. This isn't a build tool for everyone, but it really does make a big difference on big projects.
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:44:07 +0200, Rob T wrote: > This build system seems to be very well suited for building complex > large projects in a sensible way. > > I successfully tested the example build on Debian linux. I will > definitely explore this further using one of my own projects. > > One issue I immediately ran into, is when I run bub incorrectly it hangs > after writing the "bail" message to console. ctrl-c does not kill it, > and I have to run a process kill commandto terminate. > > Seems it gets stuck in doBailer() while(true) loop, but I only glanced > at the source quickly before posting back here. > > --rt I recently made a big change to the inter-thread communication code, and there are a few problems there still. I will look into it.
Re: An idea - make dlang.org a fundation
On 6/27/13, ixid wrote: >>-You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on > A better use of the money is another D conference which has > been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater > interest and exposure for D. Yes, and some better glue for the microphones. :P
Re: An idea - make dlang.org a fundation
-You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on D. This doesn't work as it's a volunteer project. Why should someone get paid when others give their time for free? It would create conflict while being a less effective application of funds, D already gets more than one or two people years of effort per year. A better use of the money is another D conference which has been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater interest and exposure for D.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 27 June 2013 14:17, Joakim wrote: > As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate. > > There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements > like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and > many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them." > This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) Fact: That quote you find laughable isn't my opinion. It was what Linus said during a Q&A after one of his talks (at least, if I remember it correctly ;). > I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a > "one-man team" > in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: > there is absolutely no connection between the topics. > I suppose that was my ignorance there, I assumed that you at least *knew* a little bit of history behind the development of D1/D2. I'm sure people would raise their eyebrows and sigh to have the age old question "why don't we just drop development of DMD and move it to X?" asked again. :o) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: DConf 2013 Day 2 Talk 5: A Precise Garbage Collector for D by Rainer Schütze
Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1fpw2r/dconf_2013_day_2_talk_5_a_precise_garbage/ Another thing to keep in account while designing a more precise garbage collection is a possible special casing for Algebraic (and Variant, and more generally for some standardized kind of tagged union): http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5057 In an Algebraic there is run-time information for the GC to decide if inside it there are pointers to follow or not. It's mostly a matter of letting the GC recognize and use such information. Bye, bearophile
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On 6/26/13 5:10 PM, Graham St Jack wrote: Bottom-up-build (bub) is a build system written in D which supports building of large C/C++/D projects. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1h6p2w/bottomupbuild_a_build_system_for_ccd/ Andrei
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
Joakim, el 27 de June a las 15:17 me escribiste: > As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate. > > There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant > statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the > rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to > doing any support on them." This assertion is so ignorant of the > facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's > talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my > prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is > absolutely no connection between the topics. > > As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly > and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial How convenient is to put a lot of adjectives together and not a single fact to say someone is wrong. Almost as convenient as calling people religious zaelots when you run out of arguments. :) And is so funny that you keep talking about the D contributors not participating in the thread when evidently you don't know who the contributors are. I'm just so glad that you are done with this debate... My eyes were hurting from reading so much crap. Bye, bye! Have fun with Visual C++! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Did you know the originally a Danish guy invented the burglar-alarm unfortunately, it got stolen
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 27 June 2013 14:40, Joakim wrote: > On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:25:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote: >> >> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: >>> >>> Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when >>> you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea >>> if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly >>> arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has >>> failed. >> >> >> Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure >> what justifies you calling people zealots. > > Read the rest of the sentence which you quoted, my reasons are stated. When > I come across so many arguments that are _factually_ wrong- "the Artistic > license doesn't allow closing source," "most linux installs don't use binary > blobs"- I know I'm dealing with religious zealots. Which is quite amusing, as those quotes aren't found anywhere in this thread. :o) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:25:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed. Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure what justifies you calling people zealots. Read the rest of the sentence which you quoted, my reasons are stated. When I come across so many arguments that are _factually_ wrong- "the Artistic license doesn't allow closing source," "most linux installs don't use binary blobs"- I know I'm dealing with religious zealots.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements Yeah, I keep wondering why someone even bothered to waste time explaining all this to someone who is incapable of both providing own reasoning and studying opponent one. I hope that anyone that has followed D history is perfectly aware of numbers that prove how beneficial transition to a community-based open development was.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate. There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them." This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is absolutely no connection between the topics. As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial twits, like the fact that D has a spec but isn't standardized by any international body. For example, I originally pointed out several examples of other projects with existing commercial models and I was told that they're not "closed." I responded that I never said that they were all closed, only commercial, and I'm now told that since my proposed model for D is closed, I'm "misstating" myself. (Slaps head) These responses seem written by people who have a very tenuous grasp on the text I wrote. Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed. Instead, you claim success when hybrid models bring more open source into the world, then nonsensically reverse course and claim that either they aren't actually hybrid or that such hybrid models are not really "open source," that it's a lie to call it that. (Slaps head again) I'm not trying to convince you zealots. You want to keep banging your heads against the wall for the greater glory of your religion, have fun with that. I'm simply putting forward a case for D going the route of the most successful projects these days, by using a hybrid model, with a unique variation that I came up with :) and have successfully used for a project of my own. Those who aren't religious about _pure_ open source can consider what I've proposed and my evidence and see if it makes sense to them. Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure what justifies you calling people zealots.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate. There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them." This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is absolutely no connection between the topics. As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial twits, like the fact that D has a spec but isn't standardized by any international body. For example, I originally pointed out several examples of other projects with existing commercial models and I was told that they're not "closed." I responded that I never said that they were all closed, only commercial, and I'm now told that since my proposed model for D is closed, I'm "misstating" myself. (Slaps head) These responses seem written by people who have a very tenuous grasp on the text I wrote. Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed. Instead, you claim success when hybrid models bring more open source into the world, then nonsensically reverse course and claim that either they aren't actually hybrid or that such hybrid models are not really "open source," that it's a lie to call it that. (Slaps head again) I'm not trying to convince you zealots. You want to keep banging your heads against the wall for the greater glory of your religion, have fun with that. I'm simply putting forward a case for D going the route of the most successful projects these days, by using a hybrid model, with a unique variation that I came up with :) and have successfully used for a project of my own. Those who aren't religious about _pure_ open source can consider what I've proposed and my evidence and see if it makes sense to them.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 08:21:12 UTC, Joakim wrote: I'm familiar with its arguments from a summary, not particularly interested in reading the whole thing. You know, I think I see what your problem is ... :-)
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
Joakim, el 26 de June a las 17:52 me escribiste: > On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 11:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Joakim, el 25 de June a las 23:37 me escribiste: > >>I don't know the views of the key contributors, but I wonder if > >>they > >>would have such a knee-jerk reaction against any paid/closed > >>work. > > > >Against being paid no, against being closed YES. Please don't even > >think > >about it. It was a hell of a ride trying to make D more open to > >step back now. > I suggest you read my original post more carefully. I have not > suggested closing up the entire D toolchain, as you seem to imply. Well, I'm not. I'm sticking with what you said. > I have suggested working on optimization patches in a closed-source > manner and providing two versions of the D compiler: one that is > faster, closed, and paid, with these optimization patches, another > that is slower, open, and free, without the optimization patches. I know, and that's what my e-mail was all about. I don't know why you got another impression. I even end the e-mail saying is a very bad business model too to just offer a paid better optimizer. > >What we need is companies paying to people to improve the > >compiler and toolchain. This is slowly starting to happen, in > >Sociomantic we are already 2 people dedicating some time to > >improve D as > >part of our job (Don and me). > Thanks for the work that you and Don have done with Sociomantic. > Why do you think more companies don't do this? My point is that if Because D is a new language and isn't as polished as other programming languages. I think Sociomantic was a bit crazy to adopt it so early really (my personal opinion). But it worked well (we had to do quite a lot extra efforts but I guess the time it saves in the daily usage paid for it). > there were money coming in from a paid compiler, Walter could fund > even more such work. Well, I think with a paid compiler you remove one of the main reasons why early adopters can be tempted to use D, because is free. What I'm sure is Sociomantic wouldn't pick D if they had to paid at that time, because it was a statup and startup usually don't have much money at first. > >We need more of this, and to get this, we need companies to start > >using D, and to get this, we need professionalism (I agree 100% with > >Andrei on this one). Is a bootstrap effort, and is not like > >volunteers need more time to be professional, is just that you have > >to want to make the jump. > I think this ignores the decades-long history we have with open > source software by now. It is not merely "wanting to make the > jump," most volunteers simply do not want to do painful tasks like > writing documentation or cannot put as much time into development > when no money is coming in. Simply saying "We have to try harder to > be professional" seems naive to me. Well, I guess we have very different views about the decades-long history of open source software, because I know tons of examples of applications being free, without "commercial implementations" or "paid modules" and very few with a more commercial model. Even more, the few examples I know of "paid modules" are quite recent, not decades-old. > >I think is way better to do less stuff but with higher quality, > >nobody is asking people for more time, is just changing the focus > >a bit, at least for some time. Again, this is only bootstrapping, and > >is always hard and painful. We need to make the jump to make > >companies comfortable using D, then things will start rolling by > >themselves. > If I understand your story right, the volunteers need to put a lot > of effort into "bootstrapping" the project to be more professional, > companies will see this and jump in, then they fund development from > then on out? It's possible, but is there any example you have in > mind? The languages that go this completely FOSS route tend not to > have as much adoption as those with closed implementations, like > C++. Are you kidding me? Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl. Do I have to say more than that? Do you really think C++ took off because there are commercial implementations? Do you think being a standardized language didn't help? Do you think the fact that there was a free implementation around that it supported virtually any existing platform didn't help? Do you think the fact was it was (almost) compatible with C (which was born freeish, since back then software was freely shared between universities) didn't help? > >First of all, your examples are completely wrong. The projects you > >are mentioning are 100% free, with no closed components (except for > >components done by third-party). > You are misstating what I said: I said "commercial," not "closed," You said close. Not just in the previous e-mail, but you just repeated it in this one: > I have suggested working on optimization patches in a CLOSED-SOURCE > manner and providing two versions of the D compiler: one that is > faster, CLOSED,
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 27 June 2013 09:53, Joakim wrote: > those involved with the D compiler can decide if this would be a worthwhile > direction. From their silence so far, I can only assume that they are not > interested in rousing the ire of the freetards and will simply maintain the > status quo of keeping all source public. > True, I tend to just ignore comments from opportunists who jump in and shout "Hey guys! I'm new around here, have you guys tried to do something completely radical on the off chance that it will work? I have a good feeling about this..!!" But as it stands, I'm taking a quick break from my usual GDC work before I reach stage 12 of burnout. ;) > This will lead to D's growth being slowed, compared to the alternative of > providing a paid compiler also. That's their choice to make. > In your opinion. > If somebody stumbles across this thread later, perhaps they will close up > optimization patches to ldc and sell a paid version. Given that those > behind dmd have not expressed any interest in a paid version, maybe these > ldc vendors will not involve them with the money or feature decisions of > their paid ldc. It would be likely that this paid compiler becomes the > dominant one and the original dmd project is forgotten. > This was said when GDC got the D2 language stable. The reality? I wouldn't hold my breath... I'm still a one-man team, and there is no contingency in place should something happen to me. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 27 June 2013 09:21, Joakim wrote: > But lets assume that you are right and the optimization patches I'm talking > about would tend to end up only in the backend. In that case, the frontend > would not have any closed patches and the paid version of dmd would simply > have a slightly-closed, more-optimized backend. There go all of Joseph's > previous arguments about the paid version not making the same OSS frontend > available to the free reference compiler or ldc and gdc. > > You are making my case for me. :) > Now you are just re-hashing what my initial thoughts were... ;) >>> Never read it but I have corresponded with the author, and I found him to >> >> be as religious about pure open source as Stallman is about the GPL. I >> suggest you try examining why D is still such a niche language even with >> "ten fold" growth. If you're not sure why, I suggest you look at the >> examples and reasons I've given, as to why closed source and hybrid models >> do much better. >>> >>> >> >> Then you should read it, as the 'cathedral' in question was GCC - a >> project >> started by Stallman. :) > > I'm familiar with its arguments from a summary, not particularly interested > in reading the whole thing. Insofar as he made the case for various > benefits of open source, some of the arguments I've heard make sense and I > have no problem with it. Insofar as he and others believe that it is an > argument for _pure_ open source or that _all_ source will eventually be > open, I think history has shown that argument to be dead wrong along with > the reasons why. > > It boils down to the facts that there is nowhere near as much money in pure > OSS models and volunteers cannot possibly provide all the materials > necessary for a full product, both of which I've mentioned before. This is > why hybrid models are now taking off, blending the benefits of open and > closed source. > But it's not blending the benefits at all. Open-core, however you try to sway or pitch it, does not qualify as open source. It is closed source. It is the opposite of open source. Personally, it is not acceptable that you market yourself as an open source product when in fact your business model is to sell closed source. This is confusing, I'd say it is border line lying. Well, marketing often is lying, but in the open source community we call out such lies, however subtle. Most open core vendors still market themselves as open source leaders, then come to you to sell closed source software. (They deserve to be critizised if you ask me). >>> Not sure what point you are trying to make, as both gdc and dmd are open >> >> source. I'm suggesting closing such patches, for a limited time. >>> >>> >> >> Closing patches benefit no one. And more to the point, you can't say >> that >> two compiler's implement the same language if both have different language >> features. > > The closed patches benefit those making money from the paid compiler and > since the free compiler would get these patches after a time limit, they > eventually benefit the community also. As for your purist approach to > compiler implementation, by that rationale, no two C++ compilers and all the > D compilers do not implement the "same language," since there are always > differences in the features supported by the different compilers. > > I'd say that some differentiation between compilers is normal and necessary. > This is were C/C++ went horribly wrong. Different compilers having a vagary of macros to identify the same platform or architecture, the question of what is valid syntax being different between compilers, code written in a certain way working in one compiler but throws an error with another... We are striving to be better than that from the start. > Also, many of the hybrid projects have pulled in previously purely-open, > purely community projects like KHTML/WebKit or mostly-open projects like the > linux kernel. The linux kernel repo evolved over time to include many > binary blobs and effectively become a hybrid model. > Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them. Moreover, the position of the Linux Foundation is that any closed-source kernel module is harmful and undesirable, and they are always urging for vendors to adopt a policy of supporting their customers on Linux with open-source kernel code. Which goes to show how useful a hybrid model has been for them... > And not all hybrid companies are that large: MySQL before it got bought out > was pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue using an "open > core" model but certainly wasn't in the super-sized class of Google or > Oracle. There are a handful of small companies that provided closed, > optimized versions of the PostgreSQL database (since most of the underlying > code is open source, it can be considered a hybrid model). > MySQL iirc was the first to practice this model.
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
Hm, bub.. Sounds like it should work with 'dub' nicely ;) Looks promising and I'd really love to see some build tool other then rdmd getting to the point it can be called standard. Makefile's sometimes are just too inconvenient.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 03:20:37 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote: I've read (almost), everything, so I hope I won't miss a point here: a) I've heard about MSVC, Red Hat, Qt, Linux and so on. From my understanding, none of the projects mentionned have gone from free (as in free beer) to hybrid/closed. And I'm not currently able to think of one successful, widespread project that did. Then you are not paying attention. As I've already noted several times, Visual Studio, which is the way most use MSVC, has both paid and free versions. Red Hat contains binary blobs and possibly other non-OSS software and charges companies for consulting and support. Qt is an "open core" project that is dual-licensed under both OSS and commercial licenses, the latter of which you pay for. Linux contains binary blobs in the vast majority of installs and most people running it paid for it. If your implied point is that the original authors aren't the ones taking the project hybrid or paid, it depends on the license. Sometimes it is those owning the original copyright, as it had to be in the Qt, MySQL, and other dual-licensing cases, other times it isn't. b) Thinking that being free (as a beer and/or as freedom), hybrid, closed source of whatever is a single critera of success seems foolish. I'm not asking for a complete comparison (I think my mailbox won't stand it ;-) ), but please stop comparing a free operating software with a paid compiler, and assume the former have more users than the later because it's free (and vice-versa). In addition, I don't see the logic behind comparing something born in the 90s with something from the 2000s. Remember the Dot-com bubble ? Obviously nothing is a "single criteria of success," as has been stated already. In complex social fields like business or technology ventures, where there are many confounding factors, judgement and interpretation are everything. By your rationale, we might as well do _anything_ because how could we possibly know that C++ wasn't immensely successful only because Bjarne Stroustrup is a Dane? Obviously none of this discussion matters, as D has very little Danish involvement and therefore can never be as popular. ;) You have to have the insight to be able to weigh all these competing factors and while I agree that most cannot, those who are successful do. d) People pay for something they need. They don't adopt something because they can pay for it. That's why paid compiler must follow language promotion, not the other way around. These assertions are somewhat meaningless. Those who value performance will pay for the optimized version of the dmd compiler that I've proposed. Those who don't will use the slower, pure-OSS version. There is no reason for a paid compiler to only follow promotion, both must be done at the same time. In any case, I've lost interest in this debate. I've made my case, those involved with the D compiler can decide if this would be a worthwhile direction. From their silence so far, I can only assume that they are not interested in rousing the ire of the freetards and will simply maintain the status quo of keeping all source public. This will lead to D's growth being slowed, compared to the alternative of providing a paid compiler also. That's their choice to make. If somebody stumbles across this thread later, perhaps they will close up optimization patches to ldc and sell a paid version. Given that those behind dmd have not expressed any interest in a paid version, maybe these ldc vendors will not involve them with the money or feature decisions of their paid ldc. It would be likely that this paid compiler becomes the dominant one and the original dmd project is forgotten. If you don't choose the best approach, a hybrid model, you leave it open for somebody else to do it and take the project in a different direction.
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 07:32:32 UTC, eles wrote: CTRL-Z works for me. I think it expects input. Ignore it. It just suspends it.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 21:15:34 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On Jun 26, 2013 9:00 PM, "Joakim" wrote: This is flat wrong. I suggest you read the Artistic license, it was chosen for a reason, ie it allows closing of source as long as you provide the original, unmodified binaries with any modified binaries. I suspect optimization fixes will be in both the frontend and backend. Code generation is in the back end, so the answer to that is simply 'no'. From what I understand about the kinds of optimizations that Walter was talking about, at least some of them would require work on the frontend also. But lets assume that you are right and the optimization patches I'm talking about would tend to end up only in the backend. In that case, the frontend would not have any closed patches and the paid version of dmd would simply have a slightly-closed, more-optimized backend. There go all of Joseph's previous arguments about the paid version not making the same OSS frontend available to the free reference compiler or ldc and gdc. You are making my case for me. :) Never read it but I have corresponded with the author, and I found him to be as religious about pure open source as Stallman is about the GPL. I suggest you try examining why D is still such a niche language even with "ten fold" growth. If you're not sure why, I suggest you look at the examples and reasons I've given, as to why closed source and hybrid models do much better. Then you should read it, as the 'cathedral' in question was GCC - a project started by Stallman. :) I'm familiar with its arguments from a summary, not particularly interested in reading the whole thing. Insofar as he made the case for various benefits of open source, some of the arguments I've heard make sense and I have no problem with it. Insofar as he and others believe that it is an argument for _pure_ open source or that _all_ source will eventually be open, I think history has shown that argument to be dead wrong along with the reasons why. It boils down to the facts that there is nowhere near as much money in pure OSS models and volunteers cannot possibly provide all the materials necessary for a full product, both of which I've mentioned before. This is why hybrid models are now taking off, blending the benefits of open and closed source. Not sure what point you are trying to make, as both gdc and dmd are open source. I'm suggesting closing such patches, for a limited time. Closing patches benefit no one. And more to the point, you can't say that two compiler's implement the same language if both have different language features. The closed patches benefit those making money from the paid compiler and since the free compiler would get these patches after a time limit, they eventually benefit the community also. As for your purist approach to compiler implementation, by that rationale, no two C++ compilers and all the D compilers do not implement the "same language," since there are always differences in the features supported by the different compilers. I'd say that some differentiation between compilers is normal and necessary. I see no reason why another "upcoming" project like D couldn't do the same. :) You seem to be confusing D for an Operating System, Smartphone, or any general consumer product. You seem to be confusing the dmd compiler to not be a piece of software, just like the rest, or the many proprietary C++ compilers out there. You seem to think when I say D I'm referring to dmd, or any other D compiler out there. I referred to the D project and have been talking about the compiler all along. The fact that you decided to make a meaningless statement, presumably about how D is a spec and therefore cannot be compared with Android, is irrelevant and frankly laughable. :) - The language implementation is open source. This allows anyone to take the current front-end code - or even write their own clean-room implementation from ground-up - and integrate it to their own backend X. Sort of. The dmd frontend is open source, but the backend is not under an open source license. Someone can swap out the backend and go completely closed, for example, using ldc (ldc used to have one or two GPL files, those would obviously have to be removed). The backend is not part of the D language implementation / specification. (for starters, it's not documented anywhere except as code). Of course the backend is part of the language implementation. It's not part of the spec, but you never mentioned the spec originally. - The development model of D on github has adopted a "pull, review and merge" system, where any changes to the language or compiler do not go in unless it goes through proper coding review and testing (thank's to the wonderful auto-tester). So your suggestion of an "open core" model has a slight fallacy here in that any changes to the closed off
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 05:44:16 UTC, Rob T wrote: One issue I immediately ran into, is when I run bub incorrectly it hangs after writing the "bail" message to console. ctrl-c does not kill it, and I have to run a process kill commandto terminate. CTRL-Z works for me. I think it expects input.
