Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Kyle via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Excellent, good work.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:57:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just 
assumed LDC would have gone with a clang-style inline assembler 
(does clang even have inline asm?).


LDC supports both DMD-style asm {} blocks as well as LLVM's 
native inline assembly format, which is very similar to GCC's, 
with explicit clobber specifications and explicit parameter 
passing (https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_assembly_expressions). 
The latter is useful on non-x86 platforms as well as to allow 
more optimizations of functions using inline asm such as inlining 
(although inlining in particular can also be enabled for 
DMD-style asm blocks using a pragma).


There are also inline IR expressions for the few situations where 
you don't want to drop down all the way to inline assembly but 
still need to crack open the hood and control the emitted LLVM 
IR: https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_IR. For example, we use it 
to implement some target-independent SIMD intrinsics in the 
library.


 — David

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Now #1 on r/programming subreddit!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Jack Stouffer wrote:


On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense 
it. Thank you, Symantec!


Something that just popped into my head:

You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's code to 
avoid legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?


nope. GPL programmers can safely look into BSDL code, for example, 'cause 
it is ok to put GPL alongside of BSDL. but BSDL programmers can't "just 
take" GPL code.


that is, it is prolly nobody will sue Walter for "copying GPL code", but it 
is better to be safe than sorry.


this is how i see the things, of course, it's not the authoritative answer.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 3:57 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's code to avoid
legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?


No, unless the other compiler is Boost as well.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:38:36PM +0100, rikki cattermole via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote:
[...]
> > I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue.
> > Could someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation and some
> > history?
> 
> So dmd's backend came directly from dmc. This makes sense as this is
> the time of Digital Mars creation (Walter has been working with this
> code base pretty much since before I was born).
> Because of how history went, it was owned by Symantic yet Digital Mars
> still developed it.
> 
> So its usage within dmd caused problems, i.e. with packaging and
> distributing because it required explicit permission from Digital Mars
> so that Symantic wouldn't get sued.
> 
> Maybe Walter can clarify but this is what I have gathered over the
> years.

There's also the aspect, AIUI, that Walter has refrained from looking at
/ contributing to the code for any other compiler backend, in order to
avoid legal complications arising from possible "tainting" from the dmd
backend code. E.g., if he were to submit a patch to the gcc backend,
Symantec could in theory come back and sue the gcc guys claiming that
their code is based on the dmc backend and so they have to pay
royalties.  Or if he were to read the code for gcc's backend, Symantec
could in theory accuse him of incorporating GPL code into the dmc
backend (since he's still working on the backend every now and then),
which is incompatible with the license.

Of course, IANAL so this relicensing may not necessarily imply that
Walter is now free to read / work on other compiler backends. Nor does
he necessarily want to do so anyway.

But regardless, this is a major step forward at least in the aspect of
finally putting to rest the "D is non-free" FUD that's been spreading
around over the years.


T

-- 
Bare foot: (n.) A device for locating thumb tacks on the floor.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Something that just popped into my head:

You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's 
code to avoid legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:

Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: LDC does
support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a different implementation.



Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just assumed LDC would have 
gone with a clang-style inline assembler (does clang even have inline asm?).

Re: D support for the Meson build system

[aberba via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:

Hi!
Last week I was at this year's GUADEC conference and listened 
to a very interesting talk on the Meson build system[2] which 
is designed for very fast builds and as a much more modern 
replacement for Automake with a simple syntax.
In the past few days I added support for D (all three major 
compilers) to the Meson build system, with some great results-


[...]


Seems like good news for us developing Linux apps.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:02:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that.

It would help for those who need this for specific versions to 
let Martin know which ones.


Great, thanks -- I'll follow up with Martin on slack.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Congrats! That's a big win, and you deserve all the merits!

Enjoy the moment!

---
Paolo

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:49:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with 
D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not 
portable to gdc/ldc.


Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: 
LDC does support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a 
different implementation.


 — David

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 2:54 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the
license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches?

I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at least to the
current stable release.  Obviously the code's real license is now officially
Boost by your decision, but it's nice to have the source clearly match up to 
this.


I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that.

It would help for those who need this for specific versions to let Martin know 
which ones.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Walter Bright wrote:

Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's 
inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.


yay!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:35:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

It applies to all of it!


Cool :-)

My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch 
changing the license in the source code applied to existing 
stable release branches?


I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at 
least to the current stable release.  Obviously the code's real 
license is now officially Boost by your decision, but it's nice 
to have the source clearly match up to this.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 1:28 PM, Ulrich Küttler wrote:

With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please reserve the name
'dork'? ;)


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(Hey, I'm feeling pretty good today!)

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 12:02 PM, Radu wrote:

Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive vibe around the
news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff missing line website, docs,
infrastructure etc.


Yes, it's the most positive response to us I've ever seen on HN, by far.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline 
assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 2:04 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:

MIT almost equal though.


I suspect that the reason MIT came up with their own license is so they could 
call it the "MIT License". Branding, ya know.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 1:02 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were

1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international law


Yes.


2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have
because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your license isn't on
the list, your project isn't being used.


Yup. We figured every corporation that uses C++ has accepted Boost, so this 
would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 07/04/2017 4:14 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
it. Thank you, Symantec!


Hip hip hooray!
I'm gonna go get some cake in a cup!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote:

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue. Could
someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation and some history?


So dmd's backend came directly from dmc. This makes sense as this is the 
time of Digital Mars creation (Walter has been working with this code 
base pretty much since before I was born).
Because of how history went, it was owned by Symantic yet Digital Mars 
still developed it.


So its usage within dmd caused problems, i.e. with packaging and 
distributing because it required explicit permission from Digital Mars 
so that Symantic wouldn't get sued.


Maybe Walter can clarify but this is what I have gathered over the years.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Am Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:14:40 -0700
schrieb Walter Bright :

> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
> 
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
> relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!

Great news! Maybe someone could notify http://phoronix.com . They've
blogged about D before and reach quite some linux users and developers.


-- Johannes

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Well, this is certainly great news.

Does this make dmd the only compiler that's fully 
boost-licensed? Usually, licenses like the GPL or BSD license 
get used. I don't get the impression that the boost license is 
all that common - at least not for actual programs as opposed 
to libraries. From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so 
heavily in the D community is abnormal, though it's as 
hassle-free as you can get with an open source license, which 
is great.


- Jonathan M Davis


I was thinking the same thing. Its probably the most permissive 
compiler out there now. MIT almost equal though.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[WhatMeWorry via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this 
issue. Could someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation 
and some history?


Thanks.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Ulrich Küttler via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


This is brilliant! Fantastic!

With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please 
reserve the name 'dork'? ;)

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, April 07, 2017 20:02:52 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
> On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the
> > D community is abnormal
>
> AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were
>
> 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international
> law
> 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major
> corps have because of Boost itself being used in those companies.
> If your license isn't on the list, your project isn't being used.

Oh, I'm quite familiar with why Walter chose the boost license, and I agree
with that choice (I use it for all of my projects). My point was that it
doesn't seem to be a very common choice outside of the D community (at least
from what I've seen).

- Jonathan M Davis

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[bluecat via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Very good news and a solid accomplishment for being on top of 
Hacker News (as of writing this). It's very good when dlang is 
discussed on the site along with the other trendy languages. It 
certainly deserves to be within common programming discourse.  
Also, congratulations on this big accomplishment!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the 
D community is abnormal


AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were

1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international 
law
2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major 
corps have because of Boost itself being used in those companies. 
If your license isn't on the list, your project isn't being used.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
>
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
> it. Thank you, Symantec!

Well, this is certainly great news.

Does this make dmd the only compiler that's fully boost-licensed? Usually,
licenses like the GPL or BSD license get used. I don't get the impression
that the boost license is all that common - at least not for actual
programs as opposed to libraries. From what I've seen, the fact that we use
it so heavily in the D community is abnormal, though it's as hassle-free as
you can get with an open source license, which is great.

- Jonathan M Davis

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Sameer Pradhan via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


That is really good news!
One less shackle preventing users from adopting :D (and if I am 
not mistaken, directly contributing to DMD)


I was just discussing it with Steve at our Boston D Meetup last 
week and he explained how it was "techincally" free, but needed 
your explicit blessing for each case—which was guaranteed. 
Strange how things work in this world many times—especially where 
software is involved.


--
Sameer

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Radu via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Glorious day for D and Dlangers.

Congrats Walter for the tenacity and thanks Symantec for coming 
to senses:)


Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive 
vibe around the news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff 
missing line website, docs, infrastructure etc.


Cheers!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:14:40AM -0700, Walter Bright via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
> 
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
> relicense it.  Thank you, Symantec!

Hooray!!  Finally!!!

Never thought I'd see this day, but here it is!

Yes, and now it's time to push for dmd to get into Debian and the rest
of the FOSS ecosystem.


T

-- 
To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- Samuel Adler

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[David Oftedal via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Wow, congratulations, and a big thank you to those who made it 
happen.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 18:51 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> […]
> So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian and
> Fedora.
> 
> Having DMD packaged as well as LDC and GDC will be a great thing for
> marketing of D.

We also need GDC in Fedora.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:14 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
> 
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
> relicense it. 
> Thank you, Symantec!

So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian and
Fedora.

Having DMD packaged as well as LDC and GDC will be a great thing for
marketing of D.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 9:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/


Thanks, someone also put it on hackernews - found it by browsing for "new"
threads. -- Andrei



It's the number one story on hackernews at the moment:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/news

Usually D does better on reddit than hackernews, but today it is doing way 
better on hackernews. 150 points!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


That was nice of Symantec to finally grant your request.  Will 
this mean more work put into the backend?  Regardless, good to 
stop the FUD about the backend licensing.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


<3

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jon Degenhardt via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Congrats, this is a great result!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Great news! By 2027, we should no longer hear objections to D 
based on the backend license.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Good news. Question:

Does this apply from now or can the previous DMD releases also be 
considered as 100% Boost licensed ?

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Walter Bright wrote:


https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense 
it. Thank you, Symantec!


i don't even know what to say... thank you! i didn't even hoped that this 
will happen. what a glorious day today.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/


Thanks, someone also put it on hackernews - found it by browsing for 
"new" threads. -- Andrei

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Reddit: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/7/2017 8:25 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable releases?  Or will it
just apply going forward?

I ask because it could make a difference to what is legally possible to package
for e.g. Linux distros, etc.


It applies to all of it!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable 
releases?  Or will it just apply going forward?


I ask because it could make a difference to what is legally 
possible to package for e.g. Linux distros, etc.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


A great step forward for the language!

A huge thank you to everyone who made this happen.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Congratulations Walter!  This is marvellous news :-)

dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. 
Thank you, Symantec!

Re: Visual D 0.44 released - VC project integration and Concord debugger extension

[tetyys via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:59:46 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:



On 12.03.2017 13:09, Rainer Schuetze wrote:

preliminary support for VS 2017 (no VC project integration yet)


VC project integration is now also available in VS 2017. Check 
out


https://github.com/dlang/visuald/releases/download/v0.44.2/VisualD-v0.44.2.exe

which also includes some bug fixes.


awesome, nice to have fast support for new visual studio version

Re: Visual D 0.44 released - VC project integration and Concord debugger extension

[Rainer Schuetze via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 12.03.2017 13:09, Rainer Schuetze wrote:

preliminary support for VS 2017 (no VC project integration yet)


VC project integration is now also available in VS 2017. Check out

https://github.com/dlang/visuald/releases/download/v0.44.2/VisualD-v0.44.2.exe

which also includes some bug fixes.

Re: D support for the Meson build system

[kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 11:45:37 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
One important thing about Ninja is that it will perform 
split-builds by default, so if you change something, only the 
changed piece needs to be recompiled. I *think* dub can do that 
too, but for some reason it never does it (even when using 
--parallel).
That behavior drastically reduces compile times when working on 
a project.


So if I understand correctly, Meson/Ninja compile each module 
separately, while dub builds them all in a single command line.
This makes quite a big difference. Compiling all at once requires 
a full rebuild every time a single file is modified and implies 
full single-threadedness. The advantages are that each file is 
only loaded and parsed once, but much more importantly, 
everything is emitted into a single object file, allowing for 
implicit full cross-module inlining (across the compiled modules).
So while compiling each file separately in parallel is 
potentially much much faster, the produced release binary may be 
slower due to less/no cross-module inlining (e.g., LDC's option 
is still experimental and known to have issues).

Re: D support for the Meson build system

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[…]
In the past few days I added support for D (all three major 
compilers) to the Meson build system, with some great results-

[…]

I hope you find this as useful as I do :-)

[…]

Yes, I do , it's great.

Currently though there is apparently no integration between Meson 
and the Dub repository, i.e. it is not possible to get 
dependencies via Dub as purely a dependency manager and nothing 
to do with actual build.