Re: LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[Dan Olson via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Jacob Carlborg  writes:

> On 2015-10-24 12:01, Suliman wrote:
>
>> Would it be hard to add Windows/Linux host available? Would it be hard
>> to develop iOS apps on Windows in comparison of using MacOSX?
>
> It depends on what you mean. Microsoft already supports developing iOS
> apps on Windows, but the building is actually performed on OS X.

In addition, the LDC cross-compiler could be built with a few tweaks for
any build host that LDC already supports.  If someone already has a
Windows/Linux dev environment for iOS, then LDC could be used with it.

Re: LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[Dan Olson via Digitalmars-d-announce]

extrawurst  writes:

> On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 07:07:18 UTC, Dan Olson wrote:
>> This is another set of binaries and universal libs for the
>> experimental LDC iOS cross-compiler.  It is now based on LDC 0.15.2
>> (2.066.1) and LLVM 3.6.1.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Cool work!
>
> Can this be merged with official LDC eventually ?
>
> --Stephan

Yes, that is the plan.

Re: Fastest JSON parser in the world is a D project

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 20:10:36 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 19:16:00 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
wrote:
On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 18:23:08 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

On 10/22/2015 09:08 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

[...]


This has been a homerun. Congratulations for this work and 
also for publicizing it! (Consider it might have remained 
just one forum discussion read by all of 80 persons...) -- 
Andrei


We really do need to stop hiding our light under a bushel.  
Thinking in marketing terms doesn't always come easy to 
technically minded people, and I understand why, but 
ultimately the community benefits a great deal from people 
becoming aware of the very real benefits D has to offer (alas 
people won't just get it, even if you think they should), and 
there are personal career benefits too from helping 
communicate how you have applied D to do useful work.  It's 
hard to find great programmers and showing what you can do 
will pay off over time.


D has no well defined area to be used in. Everyone knows D, 
when written in a very specific C-mimicking way, is performant. 
But nobody is using C# or Scala or Python for performance.


You reply to my post, but I don't entirely see how it relates.  D 
is very flexible, and that's its virtue.  Because splitting a 
codebase across multiple languages does have a cost, even if it's 
often worth paying the cost in order to use the right till for 
the job when those tools are by their nature specialised.  I 
don't think everyone knows D is performant, and I wouldn't say 
fast JSON is written in a C mimicking way, taken as a whole.


Choices are based on making trade-offs, and the relevant data are 
not static, but constantly shifting.  When an SSD in 2015 that 
isn't especially pricey gives 2.1 Gig a sec throughput and one 
has many terabytes of text data a month to get through, and 
that's today and datasets keep growing and what I write today may 
be in use for years then the right decision will be a very 
different one to that five years ago.   That's not just my 
perception, but those in other fields where the problems are 
similar - bioinformatics and advertising data being some of the 
many others.  AdRoll is known for their Python work, but their 
data scientists use D.


And my point, which you didn't really reply to, is that as a 
community we should do a bit more to share our experiences on how 
D can be useful in doing real work.  As Walter observes, that's 
also something that pays off personally too.

Re: Coedit 2 alpha 1 - now with dub

[qsdfghjk via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 23 October 2015 at 06:55:37 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
I think IDE devs are supposed to use `dub describe` not read 
the package

file directly.
That whole package loading section of dub should probably be a 
library

though.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Eliatto via 
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> 
wrote:



On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 05:08:05 UTC, BBasile wrote:

- compile, run, choose the configuration and the build type. 
but only the JSON format is handled.


BTW, why there are two formats for dub? Which one will be 
obsolete? It's a headache for IDE developers.


`dub describe` cannot be used currently for an advanced GUI. It 
has a latency issue due to dependencies checking. Coedit has a 
full DUB editor (http://imgur.com/a/WiXr7). Using this command 
would imply:


- change value in the GUI tree.
- save file.
- get and wait for the description, load and parse anyway to get 
the tree...

- update GUI.

and this for each single modification.

And I agree with you concerning the two formats. When SDL was 
announced I directly knewn that it would be a problem because 
this is a very "marginal" format. The official SDL homepage has 
been broken for monthes, showing how widely spreaded and trendy 
it is (giving the feeling that it was not even worth fixing the 
server). And there is almost no bindings for SDL at all.


Afaik, neither MonoD nor Visual-D support the SDL format. 
(although Visual-D could since it's written in D so the SDL 
library exists...).

Re: LDC 0.16.0 has been released!

[Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 04:59:02 UTC, suliman wrote:

On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 19:00:07 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

Hi everyone,

LDC 0.16.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for 
download!
This release is based on the 2.067.1 frontend and standard 
library and supports LLVM 3.1-3.7 (OS X: no support for 3.3).


Don't miss to check if your preferred system is supported by 
this release. We also have a Win64 compiler available!


As usual, you can find links to the changelog and the binary 
packages over at digitalmars.D.ldc:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/lgdxosbzpawiexnqd...@forum.dlang.org

Regards,
Kai


If I not mistaken next version would be 1.0?


Next version will be 0.17 (based on 2.068 frontend still written 
in C++). But the next after next version will be 1.0 (based on 
2.069 which includes the frontend written in D).


Regards,
Kai

Re: LDC 0.16.0 has been released!

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 at 03:22:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 15:40:41 UTC, Jack Stouffer 
wrote:
That's surprising given that many were worried that switching 
to ddmd would slow compilation speeds down by at least 30%. 
Also, this does not seem to be using any of ldc's optimization 
flags.


Well, all three of those are ddmd: the only difference is 
whether ddmd is compiled by dmd, gdc, or ldc.  The 30% 
measurement was based on comparing the previously completely 
C++ dmd with ddmd:


http://forum.dlang.org/post/55c9f77b.8050...@dawg.eu


Whoops, posted before I was done writing.

The Travis CI run combines the time spent compiling ddmd, time 
spent compiling the druntime/phobos tests, and then running the 
tests.  The original 30% comparison was only for time spent 
compiling a D codebase, like phobos or vibe.d.


It's possible ldc takes longer to compile ddmd, but then the 
resulting ddmd takes less time to compile phobos.  That would 
have to be separated out.  It's also possible the backend is not 
the issue and the D frontend itself is slower than the C++ 
frontend, in which case using ldc to compile ddmd won't make a 
difference.

Re: LDC 0.16.0 has been released!

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 15:40:41 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:

On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 03:11:30 UTC, Joakim wrote:
The associated travis CI run that finally went green with ldc 
0.16.0 beta 2 took about as long as the other D compilers, so 
performance of ldc-compiled ddmd seems comparable:


https://travis-ci.org/D-Programming-Language/dmd/builds/85017266


That's surprising given that many were worried that switching 
to ddmd would slow compilation speeds down by at least 30%. 
Also, this does not seem to be using any of ldc's optimization 
flags.


Well, all three of those are ddmd: the only difference is whether 
ddmd is compiled by dmd, gdc, or ldc.  The 30% measurement was 
based on comparing the previously completely C++ dmd with ddmd:


http://forum.dlang.org/post/55c9f77b.8050...@dawg.eu

LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[Dan Olson via Digitalmars-d-announce]

This is another set of binaries and universal libs for the experimental
LDC iOS cross-compiler.  It is now based on LDC 0.15.2 (2.066.1) and
LLVM 3.6.1.

https://github.com/smolt/ldc-iphone-dev/releases/tag/ios-0.15.2-151023

What's new?
- arm64 for iOS 64-bit devices
- C ABI compatibility improvements
- supports Xcode 7
- includes libcurl

The release download ldc2-ios-0.15.2-151023-osx.tar.xz should have
everything needed to run on an OS X build host in the same fashion as an
LDC release.  But I may have missed something.

Binary is named iphoneos-ldc2 so you can have both it and a native ldc2
in your PATH.  Usage of iphoneos-ldc2 is the same as ldc2 with the
addition of clang style -arch option to select the iOS architecture to
compile code for.  Valid -arch options are armv6, armv7, armv7s, arm64,
X86_64, or i386 (armv6 is not included in the druntime/phobos universal
libs however).

Xcode or similar is needed to link and bundle an iOS app.

Xcode is not D aware and I am unaware of a working plugin.  In the
meantime, xc-iphoneos-dc in the bin dir can be used as a custom *.d
build script.  Or you can compile D source externally and add your
libraries/object files to an Xcode project.

If you want to build LDC and the libs yourself, instructions are at:

https://github.com/smolt/ldc-iphone-dev

It is not a quick build because druntime and phobos have to be compiled
for five architectures (armv7, armv7s, arm64, i386, and x86_64).

Feedback is really appreciated.
-- 
Dan

Re: LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-10-24 12:01, Suliman wrote:


Would it be hard to add Windows/Linux host available? Would it be hard
to develop iOS apps on Windows in comparison of using MacOSX?


It depends on what you mean. Microsoft already supports developing iOS 
apps on Windows, but the building is actually performed on OS X.


--
/Jacob Carlborg

Re: LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[Suliman via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Only binaries for OS X build host are available.
Would it be hard to add Windows/Linux host available? Would it be 
hard to develop iOS apps on Windows in comparison of using MacOSX?

Re: DCD 0.7.1

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 at 22:14:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 at 08:28:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Which LDC is it supposed to build with? Trying latest stable 
(0.15.1) I get:
src/server/autocomplete.d(23): Error: module logger is in file 
'std/experimental/logger.d' which cannot be read


0.16 beta. I'll add another mention of this to the release 
notes.


Now that 0.16.0 has hit stable, DCD package in Arch is updated 
too.

Re: LDC iOS cross-compiler with arm64

[extrawurst via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 07:07:18 UTC, Dan Olson wrote:
This is another set of binaries and universal libs for the 
experimental LDC iOS cross-compiler.  It is now based on LDC 
0.15.2 (2.066.1) and LLVM 3.6.1.


[...]


Cool work!

Can this be merged with official LDC eventually ?

--Stephan