InfoWorld: Free at last! D language's official compiler is open source

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3188427/application-development/free-at-last-d-languages-official-compiler-is-open-source.html

Re: Official compiler

On 26/02/2016 06:19, Walter Bright wrote: I wish LLVM would switch to the Boost license, in particular removing this clause: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other

Re: Official compiler

On 29 February 2016 at 00:43, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 2/28/2016 1:35 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> Surely with Fibers everything would be deterministic though? >> > > I don't see the point of fibers if: > > 1. they are running on

Re: Official compiler

On 2/28/2016 1:35 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: Surely with Fibers everything would be deterministic though? I don't see the point of fibers if: 1. they are running on the same core 2. none of them do any waiting, such as waiting on I/O requests The only I/O a compiler does is

Re: Official compiler

On 02/28/2016 11:15 AM, Márcio Martins wrote: There is no reason why it should be limited to these forums, is there? Such a survey should be fairly more "realistic" and "representative" than feelings, emotions and anecdotal evidence. I think it would be interesting and useful to know what is

Re: Official compiler

On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 15:02:24 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 13:31:17 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: Could we maybe create a quick informative survey, (surveymonkey?), so we can get a glimpse of why people like D and what they believe would improve their

Re: Official compiler

On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 12:59:01 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: Should LLVM move to an Apache License would that help in migrating to an LLVM backend as the standard backend? Regards Dibyendu LLVM is great but you wouldn't want to be locked down to only one backend, probably. LLVM

Re: Official compiler

On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 15:02:24 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Such a survey wouldn't be anywhere near "realistic." The number and types of users who regularly keep up with the forums are highly unlikely to be a representative sample of D users. Not to mention that only a fraction of

Re: Official compiler

On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 13:31:17 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: Could we maybe create a quick informative survey, (surveymonkey?), so we can get a glimpse of why people like D and what they believe would improve their experience with the language? Perhaps also why they have chosen to or

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 01:53:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/17/2016 4:35 PM, Chris Wright wrote: And since DMD is something like twice as fast as LDC, there's at least some argument in favor of keeping it around. When I meet someone new who says they settled on D in their

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 22:20:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I am referring to this thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html Thanks for the pointer. If anyone wants to chip in on that thread, feel free! Hi Walter, Should LLVM move to an Apache License

Re: Official compiler

On 27 February 2016 at 23:30, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: On 2/27/2016 12:05 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: > >> On 26.02.2016 23:41, Walter Bright wrote: >> >>> On 2/26/2016 1:10 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: >>> Different passes are not really required once

Re: Official compiler

On 2/27/2016 12:05 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 26.02.2016 23:41, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/26/2016 1:10 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: Different passes are not really required once semantic analysis becomes asynchronous. Just keep track of semantic analysis dependencies, with strong and weak dependencies

Re: Official compiler

On 26.02.2016 23:41, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/26/2016 1:10 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: Different passes are not really required once semantic analysis becomes asynchronous. Just keep track of semantic analysis dependencies, with strong and weak dependencies and different means to resolve cycles of

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 1:10 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: Different passes are not really required once semantic analysis becomes asynchronous. Just keep track of semantic analysis dependencies, with strong and weak dependencies and different means to resolve cycles of weak dependencies. Then write the semantic

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 10:34 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: One interesting line of development (though would be difficult to implement) would be to do all three semantic passes asynchronously using fibers. I'd be terrified of all the synchronizing that would be necessary there. The lexing,

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 11:17 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: I was referring to something different in my post, though, as the question concerned "low-hanging fruit". The problem there is really just that template names sometimes grow unreasonably long pretty quickly. As an example, without wanting to divulge

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 3:45 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:35:04 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: [...] I recall there was a thread in the LLVM mailing list last year about moving to a different license. So

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 5:15 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I think it's much stronger when the email/logs are maintained by a disinterested third party. For example, I'd say emails that were maintained on a private server by one of the parties in the case would be less reliable than logs stored on

Re: Official compiler

On 26 Feb 2016 10:16 pm, "Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 26.02.2016 19:34, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> On 26 Feb 2016 9:45 am, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" >> > wrote:

Re: Official compiler

On 26.02.2016 19:34, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 26 Feb 2016 9:45 am, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" > wrote: > > On 2/26/2016 12:20 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> I thought that mulithreaded I/O

Re: Official compiler

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:53:21PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 02/26/2016 10:38 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: > >On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 23:06:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >>Are there any low-hanging fruit left that could make dmd faster? > > > >A big one would

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 18:53:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: My understanding is the main problem is the _same_ templates are repeatedly instantiated with the same exact parameters - the epitome of redundant work. -- Andrei Within one compiler execution, there might be some

Re: Official compiler

On 02/26/2016 09:50 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: Can we please keep this out of here? Thank you!! -- Andrei

Re: Official compiler

On 02/26/2016 10:38 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 23:06:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Are there any low-hanging fruit left that could make dmd faster? A big one would be overhauling the template mangling scheme so it does not generate mangled names a few hundred kilo

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 18:19:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: The idea is that ldc and gdc will get plenty of warning if something breaks. As stated, this in itself would be utterly useless. Right now, you can be absolutely certain that the AST semantics will change in between

Re: Official compiler

On 26 Feb 2016 9:45 am, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 2/26/2016 12:20 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> I thought that mulithreaded I/O did not change anything, or slowed compilation >> down in some cases? >> >> Or I recall seeing a

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/16 9:26 AM, Radu wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 13:11:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 2/26/16 7:02 AM, Radu wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:01:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I don't see anything unfair. gdc, ldc, and dmd are each as good as their respective teams

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 23:06:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Are there any low-hanging fruit left that could make dmd faster? A big one would be overhauling the template mangling scheme so it does not generate mangled names a few hundred kilo (!) bytes in size anymore for code that uses

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:50:27 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:12 +, BBasile via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] BTW Malicious people can cheat and commit in the past, according to https://github.com/gelstudios/gitfiti commitment date is not reliable. Indeed,

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 13:11:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 2/26/16 7:02 AM, Radu wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:01:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I don't see anything unfair. gdc, ldc, and dmd are each as good as their respective teams make them. The lack of

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/16 6:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 02:52 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] I'm not aware of any, either, that is specific to github. But given how digital records in general (such as email, social media posts, etc.) are routinely

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/16 7:02 AM, Radu wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:01:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I don't see anything unfair. gdc, ldc, and dmd are each as good as their respective teams make them. The lack of fairness comes from the way the ecosystem is setup, you have the reference

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:01:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/26/2016 1:47 AM, Radu wrote: Please don't get me wrong, we all apreciate what you offered to the D community, but all these legal arguments are strongly tied to you, and less so to the community. Didn't Google get hung

Re: Official compiler

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:12 +, BBasile via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > BTW Malicious people can cheat and commit in the past, according  > to > > https://github.com/gelstudios/gitfiti > > commitment date is not reliable. Indeed, which is why Mercurial is a much better system, though it is

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:35:04 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: [...] I recall there was a thread in the LLVM mailing list last year about moving to a different license. So maybe that is on the cards, and the D

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I wish LLVM would switch to the Boost license, in particular removing this clause: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 10:41:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 22:19 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] One thing I adore about github is it provides a legal audit trail of where the code came from. While that proves nothing about whether

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 1:47 AM, Radu wrote: Please don't get me wrong, we all apreciate what you offered to the D community, but all these legal arguments are strongly tied to you, and less so to the community. Didn't Google get hung out to dry over 6 lines of Java code or something like that? And I

Re: Official compiler

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 02:52 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > I'm not aware of any, either, that is specific to github. But given > how digital  > records in general (such as email, social media posts, etc.) are > routinely  > accepted as evidence, I'd be very surprised if

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 2:41 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: Has there been case law in the USA that gives a Git log official status as a record of history? I haven't done a detailed search here, but I am not aware of any case law in the UK on this. Other jursidictions will have their own rules

Re: Official compiler

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 16:51 +, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > Travis CI, which is probably the one "trendy, hipster" service  > most would think of, has been supporting D for quite some while  > now due to Martin Nowak's great work. (He put Iain's name and  > mine on it too,

Re: Official compiler

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 22:19 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] > > One thing I adore about github is it provides a legal audit trail of > where the  > code came from. While that proves nothing about whether contributions > are stolen  > or not, it provides a date stamp (like my

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/18/2016 1:30 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly avoided looking at the source code for other compilers like gcc, because he doesn't want anyone to be able to

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 23:48:15 UTC, Xavier Bigand wrote: IMO if Go is a fast compiler is just because dmd shows the way. Go was designed to compile fast because Google was looking for something faster than C++ for largish projects. The authors were also involved with Unix/Plan9

Re: Official compiler

On 2/26/2016 12:20 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: I thought that mulithreaded I/O did not change anything, or slowed compilation down in some cases? Or I recall seeing a slight slowdown when I first tested it in gdc all those years ago. So left it disabled - probably for the best

Re: Official compiler

On 25 Feb 2016 11:05 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 2/25/2016 1:50 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >> Good to know, thanks! -- Andrei > > > DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD instead of g++. Also, dmd was doing

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I wish LLVM would switch to the Boost license, in particular removing this clause: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the

Re: Official compiler

On 2/18/2016 1:30 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly avoided looking at the source code for other compilers like gcc, because he doesn't want anyone to be able to accuse him of stealing code, copyright infringement, etc. Now, that's

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 00:56:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/25/2016 3:06 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: I remember you did a bunch of stuff to the optimizer after the switchover to self-hosting; how much of a difference did that make? Are there any low-hanging fruit left

Re: Official compiler

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:48:15 +0100, Xavier Bigand wrote: > Is dmd multi-threaded? Not at present. It should be relatively easy to parallelize IO and parsing, at least in theory. I think IO parallelism was removed with the ddmd switch, maybe? But you'd have to identify the files you need to

Re: Official compiler

On 2/25/2016 3:06 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: I remember you did a bunch of stuff to the optimizer after the switchover to self-hosting; how much of a difference did that make? Are there any low-hanging fruit left that could make dmd faster? There's a lot of low hanging fruit in

Re: Official compiler

On 2/25/2016 3:06 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 22:03:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD instead of g++. You can compile it using LDC just fine now. ;) I think we should ask Martin to set that up for the

Re: Official compiler

Le 25/02/2016 03:48, Walter Bright a écrit : On 2/24/2016 6:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I've also heard from big users who want the performance more than compile time and hit difficulty in build scaling.. I know that performance trumps all for many users. But we can have both - dmd and

Re: Official compiler

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:03:47PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 2/25/2016 1:50 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >Good to know, thanks! -- Andrei > > DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD instead of > g++. Also, dmd was doing multithreaded file I/O, but

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 22:03:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD instead of g++. You can compile it using LDC just fine now. ;) Also, dmd was doing multithreaded file I/O, but that was removed because speed didn't matter . Did

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 22:38:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 19:55:20 UTC, rsw0x wrote: [...] Would it be possible to point me in the directions of projects where you saw ldc being faster? I didn't try per-module, but on the projects I tried, dmd is

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 19:55:20 UTC, rsw0x wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 19:25:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next question which pops up is about

Re: Official compiler

On 2/25/2016 1:50 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Good to know, thanks! -- Andrei DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD instead of g++. Also, dmd was doing multithreaded file I/O, but that was removed because speed didn't matter . As I said, keeping the compiler speed

Re: Official compiler

On 02/25/2016 02:55 PM, rsw0x wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 19:25:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next question which pops up is about compilation speed ldc

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 19:25:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next question which pops up is about compilation speed ldc is still significantly faster than clang

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next question which pops up is about compilation speed ldc is still significantly faster than clang, or gdc than gcc. I don't think this is that much of a valid

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 17:57:49 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: I'm only playing devil's advocate because many people here make it seem as if there was no cost to supporting multiple compilers, while there most definitely is. This ranges from the blatant duplication of work over PR

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:05:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Kai Nacke wrote: I really like the compiler diversity. Me too. Having 3 major implementations is a great source of strength for D. I like it too. I just think that we can't afford it at this point,

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:58:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: A big chunk of that was getting D to catch C++ exceptions. And before I did this work, neither GDC nor LDC did, either. It's not a simple matter of just turning it on given Dwarf EH. That's beside the point, the C++ interop

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 01:53:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/17/2016 4:35 PM, Chris Wright wrote: And since DMD is something like twice as fast as LDC, there's at least some argument in favor of keeping it around. When I meet someone new who says they settled on D in their

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 09:04:17 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: I wonder if anyone has noticed, or appreciated that, all the trendy, hipster cloud based CI servers support Go, sometimes C++ and C (sort of), but not Rust, or D. Travis CI, which is probably the one "trendy, hipster" service

Re: Official compiler

GDC/LDC vs. "very fast compilation speeds" as pro of DMD. If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next question which pops up is about compilation speed Yeah. dmd's compilation speed has been a huge win for us and tends to make a very good first im

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:58:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/18/2016 11:54 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: But imagine that Walter would have invested all the time he spent e.g. on implementing DWARF EH into optimizing the LDC frontend/glue layer/backend pass structure instead. Who

Re: Official compiler

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 18:48 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > > For comparison, C++ compiles like a pig, I've read that Rust compiles > like a  > pig, and Go makes a lot of hay for compiling fast. I wonder if anyone has noticed, or appreciated that, all the trendy, hipster

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:05:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Kai Nacke wrote: I really like the compiler diversity. Me too. Having 3 major implementations is a great source of strength for D. This needs to go further, currently there is no up to date, high

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:47:33 UTC, rsw0x wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:26:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:16:57 UTC, rsw0x wrote: licensing issues I can't see any... Walter would be licensed to distribute all three. GDC is under

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:26:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:16:57 UTC, rsw0x wrote: licensing issues I can't see any... Walter would be licensed to distribute all three. GDC is under GPL

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:16:57 UTC, rsw0x wrote: licensing issues I can't see any... Walter would be licensed to distribute all three.

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:07:20 UTC, Puming wrote: On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:48:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: [...] Maybe in the future, when ldc/gdc catches up versions with dmd, we can combine them into a bundle for downloads? Then new people can just download the

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:48:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/24/2016 6:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I've also heard from big users who want the performance more than compile time and hit difficulty in build scaling.. I know that performance trumps all for many users. But we can

Re: Official compiler

On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Kai Nacke wrote: I really like the compiler diversity. Me too. Having 3 major implementations is a great source of strength for D.

Re: Official compiler

On 2/18/2016 11:54 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: But imagine that Walter would have invested all the time he spent e.g. on implementing DWARF EH into optimizing the LDC frontend/glue layer/backend pass structure instead. Who knows, we might have an LDC-based compiler today that is faster than the

Re: Official compiler

On 2/24/2016 6:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I've also heard from big users who want the performance more than compile time and hit difficulty in build scaling.. I know that performance trumps all for many users. But we can have both - dmd and ldc/gdc. My point is that compile speed is a

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:08:32 UTC, Paul O'Neil wrote: On 02/18/2016 02:06 PM, rsw0x wrote: I believe Brian Schott had worked on something like this for D... Did that ever go anywhere? Brian's project is at https://github.com/Hackerpilot/generated . I can't speak to the state of

Re: Official compiler

On 02/18/2016 02:06 PM, rsw0x wrote: > On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 17:52:10 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: >> I really like the compiler diversity. What I miss (hint!) is a program >> to verify the compiler/backend correctness. Just generate a random D >> program, compile with all 3 compilers and

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 01:53:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: When I meet someone new who says they settled on D in their company for development, I casually ask why they selected D? "Because it compiles so fast." I actually agree this is a big issue and one of the killer features

Re: Official compiler

On 2/17/2016 4:35 PM, Chris Wright wrote: And since DMD is something like twice as fast as LDC, there's at least some argument in favor of keeping it around. When I meet someone new who says they settled on D in their company for development, I casually ask why they selected D? "Because

Re: Official compiler

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 22:43:07 UTC, Xavier Bigand wrote: I know Visuald support ldc, but for dub I didn't find anything on how it find which compiler to use. I agree the docs could be better. If you type dub build --help, it shows that --compiler is an option. So you would just

Re: Official compiler

Le 17/02/2016 23:57, Márcio Martins a écrit : I was reading the other thread "Speed kills" and was wondering if there is any practical reason why DMD is the official compiler? Currently, newcomers come expecting their algorithm from rosetta code to run faster in D than their curren

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 19 February 2016 at 09:06:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Walter has stated previously that there have been cases of lawyers coming to him about him possibly violating someone else's copyright, and when he tells them that he's never even looked at the source code, that satisfies

Re: Official compiler

On Friday, 19 February 2016 at 09:06:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:39:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:30:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly avoided

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:39:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:30:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly avoided looking at the source code for other compilers like gcc, because he

Re: Official compiler

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:29:20 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 23:42:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: >> There are damages for patent infringement. There are higher damages for >> willful infringement. > > Iff you use it as a means for production. There is nothing

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 23:42:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: You testify it under oath, and you hope you look honest. You can show a lack of GCC source code on your home computer, possibly. If they actually have a strong case it will be highly unlikely that you have arrived at it

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 20:28:41 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: You can use rdmd with ldmd2 just as well (and presumably gdmd too). First I'm hearing of it.

Re: Official compiler

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:41:46 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 22:22:57 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: >> With copyright, the fact that you created yours on your own is >> sufficient defense, assuming the courts agree. If by sheer coincidence >> you come up with code

Re: [OT] Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 20:18:14 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 at 22:57:20 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: […] On a completely unrelated note, you aren't by any chance the Márcio Martins who is giving a talk at ETH in a couple of days, are you? — David

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 22:33:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 18 February 2016 at 22:23, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: [...] Actually, I'm sure this is a great way to let bugs in. There's no saying what could happen if you switch compiler

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 22:22:57 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: With copyright, the fact that you created yours on your own is sufficient defense, assuming the courts agree. If by sheer coincidence you come up with code identical to what's in GCC, but you can show that you didn't take the

Re: Official compiler

On 18 February 2016 at 22:23, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 20:28:41 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: > >> On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 17:56:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >>> […] if you want to be writing scripts

Re: Official compiler

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:39:45 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:30:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly >> avoided looking at the source code for other compilers like gcc, >> because he

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 21:30:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's not a strawman. Walter has state previously that he's explicitly avoided looking at the source code for other compilers like gcc, because he doesn't want anyone to be able to accuse him of stealing code, copyright

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 20:24:31 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And actually, he'd risk legal problems if he did, because he doesn't want anyone to be able to accuse him of taking code from gcc or llvm. That's a

Re: Official compiler

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 20:28:41 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 17:56:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […] if you want to be writing scripts in D (which is really useful), you need rdmd, which means using dmd You can use rdmd with ldmd2 just as well (and

  1   2   >