On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 20:34:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 17:04:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 6 October 2017 at 17:21, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:04:25 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet...
>>
>>
>> Really?  Well, maintenance should be rather small now that the patch / diff is relatively tiny for GDC.  Rebasing only against dmd/stable branch on a weekly basis or so should help things along also.
>
> A lot of (most, even?) D users ignore GDC because it's been substantially behind the cutting edge for so long. Managing to catch up and become relevant to them is big news, if you want users.
>
> To clarify: this includes Phobos, right?

Yes, the gdc downloads page hasn't been updated in 9 months:

https://gdcproject.org/downloads

By comparison, ldc is at the ddmd 2.074 frontend, which has been downloaded 7000 times in the last month since it was released:

http://www.somsubhra.com/github-release-stats/?username=ldc-developers&repository=ldc

The gdc devs should put out a new release with a more up-to-date frontend and announce it, so that all this work they've done gets more use.

On 7 October 2017 at 04:46, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, the gdc downloads page hasn't been updated in 9 months:
>
> https://gdcproject.org/downloads
>
> By comparison, ldc is at the ddmd 2.074 frontend, which has been downloaded 7000 times in the last month since it was released:
>
> http://www.somsubhra.com/github-release-stats/?username=ldc-developers&repository=ldc
>
> The gdc devs should put out a new release with a more up-to-date frontend and announce it, so that all this work they've done gets more use.

Why don't _you_ help put out a release?  There are plenty of ready-made packages available to distributions from Slackware to Archlinux and everything inbetween.

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 09:54:41 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 7 October 2017 at 04:46, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, the gdc downloads page hasn't been updated in 9 months:
>>
>> https://gdcproject.org/downloads
>>
>> By comparison, ldc is at the ddmd 2.074 frontend, which has been downloaded 7000 times in the last month since it was released:
>>
>> http://www.somsubhra.com/github-release-stats/?username=ldc-developers&repository=ldc
>>
>> The gdc devs should put out a new release with a more up-to-date frontend and announce it, so that all this work they've done gets more use.
>
> Why don't _you_ help put out a release?  There are plenty of ready-made packages available to distributions from Slackware to Archlinux and everything inbetween.

Heh, I don't use GPL software if I can avoid it, so I'd never use gdc, even if it's a new release.  It's good that others are packaging up newer versions of gdc, but John and I are simply pointing out that the official releases page being behind hurts the perception of gdc.

I understand that you've been very busy with getting gdc into gcc and that there's not much manpower helping you out, but we're suggesting that you release a binary, even if just a beta like ldc does, and announce it to help change that perception.  Most people don't read the gdc forum, which is one of the reasons I've been posting on gdc progress here, even though I'd never use or contribute to it.

Regardless, there are D devs who'd like to use gdc, so I'm just trying to help you and them out.

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 10:24:38 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
> I understand that you've been very busy with getting gdc into gcc and that there's not much manpower helping you out, but we're suggesting that you release a binary, even if just a beta like ldc does, and announce it to help change that perception.  Most people don't read the gdc forum, which is one of the reasons I've been posting on gdc progress here, even though I'd never use or contribute to it.
>
> Regardless, there are D devs who'd like to use gdc, so I'm just trying to help you and them out.

Also, maybe it will be easier to get people to help him if they know that it's up-to-date.

On 7 October 2017 at 15:00, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 10:24:38 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>
>> I understand that you've been very busy with getting gdc into gcc and that there's not much manpower helping you out, but we're suggesting that you release a binary, even if just a beta like ldc does, and announce it to help change that perception.  Most people don't read the gdc forum, which is one of the reasons I've been posting on gdc progress here, even though I'd never use or contribute to it.
>>
>> Regardless, there are D devs who'd like to use gdc, so I'm just trying to help you and them out.
>
>
> Also, maybe it will be easier to get people to help him if they know that it's up-to-date.

Why would that change anything?

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 16:46:44 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 7 October 2017 at 15:00, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 10:24:38 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand that you've been very busy with getting gdc into gcc and that there's not much manpower helping you out, but we're suggesting that you release a binary, even if just a beta like ldc does, and announce it to help change that perception.  Most people don't read the gdc forum, which is one of the reasons I've been posting on gdc progress here, even though I'd never use or contribute to it.
>>>
>>> Regardless, there are D devs who'd like to use gdc, so I'm just trying to help you and them out.
>>
>>
>> Also, maybe it will be easier to get people to help him if they know that it's up-to-date.
>
> Why would that change anything?

Most people don't follow gdc development closely.  If you say that there's a newer version available and you'd like help packaging it, someone might step up.  After all, it's much easier to package the compiler than to keep it up to date, as you've been doing.

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 16:46:44 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 7 October 2017 at 15:00, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 10:24:38 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>
>> Also, maybe it will be easier to get people to help him if they know that it's up-to-date.
>
> Why would that change anything?

Because language geeks are often motivated by the new and shiny and don't like to put effort in to things that don't feel like "the future".

On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:21:05 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet...

I very much so agree. This is fantastic news!

Are there any beta (alpha|beta|rc)-builds available for download?

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 17:15:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
> Most people don't follow gdc development closely.  If you say that there's a newer version available and you'd like help packaging it, someone might step up.  After all, it's much easier to package the compiler than to keep it up to date, as you've been doing.

He'll never know if someone will help if he doesn't ask.

On 7 October 2017 at 20:31, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 17:15:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most people don't follow gdc development closely.  If you say that there's a newer version available and you'd like help packaging it, someone might step up.  After all, it's much easier to package the compiler than to keep it up to date, as you've been doing.
>
>
> He'll never know if someone will help if he doesn't ask.

I have a long list of threads going back 8 years asking just that. ;-)