Re: DFL can be used by D2.065
Hi,every one. I fork a new dfl from https://github.com/Rayerd/dfl we should keep the origin code is refresh. I find the error in DMD 2.065 is: becase the base.d(403) ,dfl is not work. I have modified it. Please look it :https://github.com/Franklike/dfl Thank you who use it. Christopher E. Miller,thank you.
Re: DFL can be used by D2.065
it doesn't work for 64bit. will you fix that too? On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 09:08:17 UTC, FrankLike wrote: Hi,every one. I fork a new dfl from https://github.com/Rayerd/dfl we should keep the origin code is refresh. I find the error in DMD 2.065 is: becase the base.d(403) ,dfl is not work. I have modified it. Please look it :https://github.com/Franklike/dfl Thank you who use it. Christopher E. Miller,thank you.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 21:16:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: It could be useful for me just this past week in a throw-away D program that I wrote (at work! :) ) to parse some C and C++ files very crudely. As I understand, a preprocessor works on macros only, the rest is lexed minimally.
Mono-D 1.8 - Conditional code highlighting
Hi everyone, just messed around with the MonoDevelop APIs and got some nice editing-related feature working. http://mono-d.alexanderbothe.com/conditional-highlighting-v1-8/ Hopefully it won't crash immediately or obstruct the displayed code in any other wise..but let's see. :-P Cheers, Alex
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/2014 10:08 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 21:16:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: It could be useful for me just this past week in a throw-away D program that I wrote (at work! :) ) to parse some C and C++ files very crudely. As I understand, a preprocessor works on macros only, the rest is lexed minimally. Yes, it won't help much with the rest.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 19:28:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2014 10:08 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 21:16:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: It could be useful for me just this past week in a throw-away D program that I wrote (at work! :) ) to parse some C and C++ files very crudely. As I understand, a preprocessor works on macros only, the rest is lexed minimally. Yes, it won't help much with the rest. Were those ycombinator performance figures putting warp someway behind clang valid? Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to match clang?
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/14, ixid nuacco...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to match clang? Sounds like wasted effort, why improve tools for parsing C++ instead of improving tools for parsing D?
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 20:43:52 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 3/30/14, ixid nuacco...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to match clang? Sounds like wasted effort, why improve tools for parsing C++ instead of improving tools for parsing D? It's good advertising for D, in a few ways: 1. C++ devs looking for faster compiles will learn about warp, and learn about D. 2. It shows that D is being used successfully in real projects. 3. It shows that D lives up to its performance claims.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/2014 1:04 PM, ixid wrote: Were those ycombinator performance figures putting warp someway behind clang valid? I presume so, as the figures for how Warp was faster than gnu cpp were comparable to what Andrei and I measured.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/14, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote: 3. It shows that D lives up to its performance claims. Maybe. But there's a sore thumb in that codebase: GC.disable(); And that will do exactly the opposite for its performance claims (with regards to advertising it).
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/2014 2:15 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Maybe. But there's a sore thumb in that codebase: GC.disable(); And that will do exactly the opposite for its performance claims (with regards to advertising it). Not really. It proves that you can absolutely get work done in D without using the GC.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 3/30/2014 3:07 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: But D has to prove that you can get work done *with* using the GC. No matter how good the GC is, the word GC turns away a lot of programmers with a knee-jerk response. I aimed to show that one can write effective D programs without using the GC.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
ixid, el 30 de March a las 20:04 me escribiste: On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 19:28:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2014 10:08 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 21:16:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: It could be useful for me just this past week in a throw-away D program that I wrote (at work! :) ) to parse some C and C++ files very crudely. As I understand, a preprocessor works on macros only, the rest is lexed minimally. Yes, it won't help much with the rest. Were those ycombinator performance figures putting warp someway behind clang valid? Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to match clang? I think that's pretty wasteful, why won't you just use clang? What's the point of competing with another opensource project (a very good one, that took a lot of men-hour to do a good C/C++ compiler, including the preprocessor). I understand Walter did this in a couple of weeks, clang have been developed for at least 7 years now, is totally understandable that clang outperforms warp, is enough merit for warp to outperform GCC. I mean, if someone wants to have fun, go ahead, but putting community effort on that where there are so many places that are more important to put the effort on seems a bit silly. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- Debemos creer en los sueños del niño. Cuando el niño sueña con tetas, se toca. -- Ricardo Vaporeso. Toulouse, 1915.
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On 03/30/2014 04:58 PM, Peter Alexander wrote: On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 20:43:52 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 3/30/14, ixid nuacco...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to match clang? Sounds like wasted effort, why improve tools for parsing C++ instead of improving tools for parsing D? It's good advertising for D, in a few ways: 1. C++ devs looking for faster compiles will learn about warp, and learn about D. 2. It shows that D is being used successfully in real projects. 3. It shows that D lives up to its performance claims. +1
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 00:09:34 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: I think that's pretty wasteful, why won't you just use clang? What's the point of competing with another opensource project (a very good one, that took a lot of men-hour to do a good C/C++ compiler, including the preprocessor). I understand Walter did this in a couple of weeks, clang have been developed for at least 7 years now, is totally understandable that clang outperforms warp, is enough merit for warp to outperform GCC. I mean, if someone wants to have fun, go ahead, but putting community effort on that where there are so many places that are more important to put the effort on seems a bit silly. Walter taking 2 weeks to do something comparable to what the clang and gcc guys have done over many years, serves as massive advertising for D. Also, here we now have an entire project written by the man himself. That should serve as required reading for anybody who wants to learn how to code in the latest D. And it serves as a benchmark for the best C++ coders. They can try to do the same in C++ in two weeks. (I bet by the end of the two weeks the guys are ready to switch languages!)
Re: warp: a fast C and C++ preprocessor
On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 03:25:37 UTC, justme wrote: On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 00:09:34 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: I mean, if someone wants to have fun, go ahead, but putting community effort on that where there are so many places that are more important to put the effort on seems a bit silly. Agreed. Walter taking 2 weeks to do something comparable to what the clang and gcc guys have done over many years, serves as massive advertising for D. Maybe, but sober observers will realize that Walter could probably have done something similar in C++. That doesn't negate your point though, that it's a good ad for D. Also, here we now have an entire project written by the man himself. That should serve as required reading for anybody who wants to learn how to code in the latest D. I made a first pass through. I notice that almost every 'alias' is of the form alias existing_name new_name; I thought that in the latest D the alias syntax was alias new_name = existing_name; Should I be following Walter's lead with respect to alias?
