Jump to page: 1 2
Thread overview
checked out the D port for Linux?
Aug 11, 2002
andy
Aug 11, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 12, 2002
andy
Aug 12, 2002
andy
Aug 12, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 12, 2002
andy
Aug 12, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 12, 2002
andy
Aug 12, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 12, 2002
Jonathan Andrew
Aug 12, 2002
andy
Aug 12, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 13, 2002
Burton Radons
Aug 13, 2002
Jonathan Andrew
Aug 13, 2002
andy
Aug 13, 2002
Jan Knepper
Aug 13, 2002
Andrew C. Oliver
Aug 13, 2002
Jonathan Andrew
August 11, 2002
Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks (gcc).

-Andy

August 11, 2002
What do you mean???
The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
a backend that isn't there. <g>

I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known, but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>

Jan



andy wrote:

> Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks (gcc).
>
> -Andy

August 12, 2002
http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz

This guy already compiles on linux.

Jan Knepper wrote:
> What do you mean???
> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
> a backend that isn't there. <g>
> 
> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to
> the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
> files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be
> very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have
> the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known,
> but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and
> hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
>>impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a
>>nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks
>>(gcc).
>>
>>-Andy
> 
> 


August 12, 2002
(it being the actor and not the direct object -- meaning it compiles my hello world program at least:
http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/cgi-local/pragprog?TheDLanguage
)

andy wrote:
> http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz
> 
> This guy already compiles on linux.
> 
> Jan Knepper wrote:
> 
>> What do you mean???
>> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
>> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
>> a backend that isn't there. <g>
>>
>> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to
>> the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
>> files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be
>> very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have
>> the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known,
>> but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and
>> hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
>>> impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a
>>> nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks
>>> (gcc).
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


August 12, 2002
Cool!
Great that he visited the newsgroup and told everybody about it! <g>
Jan



andy wrote:
> http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz
> 
> This guy already compiles on linux.
> 
> Jan Knepper wrote:
> 
>> What do you mean???
>> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
>> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
>> a backend that isn't there. <g>
>>
>> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to
>> the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
>> files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be
>> very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have
>> the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known,
>> but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and
>> hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
>>> impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a
>>> nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks
>>> (gcc).
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

August 12, 2002
He visited the main newsgroup.

Jan Knepper wrote:
> Cool!
> Great that he visited the newsgroup and told everybody about it! <g>
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> andy wrote:
> 
>> http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz
>>
>> This guy already compiles on linux.
>>
>> Jan Knepper wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean???
>>> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
>>> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
>>> a backend that isn't there. <g>
>>>
>>> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to
>>> the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
>>> files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be
>>> very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have
>>> the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known,
>>> but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and
>>> hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> andy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
>>>> impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc is a
>>>> nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it sucks
>>>> (gcc).
>>>>
>>>> -Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


August 12, 2002
Well, I guess we'll have to see what to do next...

I took a quick look at it, but dli is far from done as well. Besides that it
deviates from 'D'...
It would be great if we all could work together someway...

Jan



andy wrote:

> He visited the main newsgroup.
>
> Jan Knepper wrote:
> > Cool!
> > Great that he visited the newsgroup and told everybody about it! <g>
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> > andy wrote:
> >
> >> http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz
> >>
> >> This guy already compiles on linux.
> >>
> >> Jan Knepper wrote:
> >>
> >>> What do you mean???
> >>> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give
> >>> you a
> >>> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and
> >>> invokes
> >>> a backend that isn't there. <g>
> >>>
> >>> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any
> >>> changes to
> >>> the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
> >>> files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer
> >>> should be
> >>> very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side
> >>> we have
> >>> the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is
> >>> known,
> >>> but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in
> >>> between and
> >>> hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> andy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
> >>>> impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc
> >>>> is a
> >>>> nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it
> >>>> sucks
> >>>> (gcc).
> >>>>
> >>>> -Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >

--
Jan Knepper
Smartsoft, LLC
88 Petersburg Road
Petersburg, NJ 08270
U.S.A.

http://www.smartsoft.cc/

Phone : 609-628-4260
FAX   : 609-628-1267

In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
    -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>


August 12, 2002
Jan Knepper wrote:
> Well, I guess we'll have to see what to do next...
> 
> I took a quick look at it, but dli is far from done as well. Besides that it
> deviates from 'D'...

look'd minor.  Walter?  Have you looked at the deviations?  Are they going to make it back into D or is this a real fork?

> It would be great if we all could work together someway...
> 

totally agree

> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>He visited the main newsgroup.
>>
>>Jan Knepper wrote:
>>
>>>Cool!
>>>Great that he visited the newsgroup and told everybody about it! <g>
>>>Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>andy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://amateur-scrolls.sourceforge.net/old/dli/dli-0.0.5.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>This guy already compiles on linux.
>>>>
>>>>Jan Knepper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What do you mean???
>>>>>The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give
>>>>>you a
>>>>>couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and
>>>>>invokes
>>>>>a backend that isn't there. <g>
>>>>>
>>>>>I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any
>>>>>changes to
>>>>>the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement
>>>>>files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer
>>>>>should be
>>>>>very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side
>>>>>we have
>>>>>the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is
>>>>>known,
>>>>>but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in
>>>>>between and
>>>>>hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>andy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Has anyone else checked out the D port for linux?  It works!  I was
>>>>>>impressed!  I'm starting to think its a better approach because gcc
>>>>>>is a
>>>>>>nasty horrid beast and the more I've dug in it the more I think it
>>>>>>sucks
>>>>>>(gcc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
> 
> --
> Jan Knepper
> Smartsoft, LLC
> 88 Petersburg Road
> Petersburg, NJ 08270
> U.S.A.
> 
> http://www.smartsoft.cc/
> 
> Phone : 609-628-4260
> FAX   : 609-628-1267
> 
> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
>     -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
> 
> 


August 12, 2002
andy wrote:

> Jan Knepper wrote:
> > Well, I guess we'll have to see what to do next...
> >
> > I took a quick look at it, but dli is far from done as well. Besides that it deviates from 'D'...
>
> look'd minor.  Walter?  Have you looked at the deviations?  Are they going to make it back into D or is this a real fork?

Yes, it looked minor, but I rather have NO deviations, what-so-ever...



August 12, 2002
Jan Knepper wrote:

> What do you mean???
> The current CVS 'HEAD' should compile and indeed run... It will give you a
> couple of messages because of stub-functions, but yes, it parses and invokes
> a backend that isn't there. <g>
>
> I expect that the way things have been setup now, i.e. hardly any changes to the original D-front-end sources, a separate directory with replacement files for the missing code (and back-end) writing the GLUE layer should be very well defined within boundaries. I mean, on the D-front-end side we have the stubs (and there are quite a few of 'em). The back-end (GCC) is known, but indeed a horrid beast. So may be we can put some BEAUTY in between and hope we do not get into a copyright conflict with Walt Disney... <g>
>
> Jan
>

Yes, I think it is great that there is another option for using D in linux!
Anything
to give more people the opportunity to use this great language. However,
working
to adapt D to the gcc backend opens up D for use in many more platforms than
just linux, and despite the fact that gcc might not be everyone's favorite
compiler,
it is everywhere, and people have come to trust it because of that fact. So
while
I am very glad to see Burton's success, I don't think we have wasted any effort

in working to create the glue layer for GCC, its still a very desirable goal.

Doing things in this fashion also makes the compiler less dependent on changes to Walter's front end, and should ensure it is more compliant with Walter's specs.

My two cents,
 -Jon


« First   ‹ Prev
1 2