On 2016-12-21 15:58, Madaz Hill wrote:

> I'd like to add that the windows version would require another change so
> that DMD becomes true FOSS. Unless the 32 bit version get dropped away,
> the standard C library, snn.lib, is even not open-sourced (which is a
> worst than the backend situation) !

A. The 64bit version uses the Microsoft tool chain, how is that more open source?

B. It's possible to use the Microsoft tool chain when compiling for 32bit as well

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 23:08:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hello, a few engineers at Red Hat are taking a look at using the D language on the desktop and have reached out to us. They have created a list of issues. We are on the top-level ones, and of course would appreciate any community help as well.
>
> https://gist.github.com/ximion/77dda83a9926f892c9a4fa0074d6bf2b

I'm the author of Terminix (https://github.com/gnunn1/terminix), a semi-popular terminal emulator for Gnome and Linux. Ximion was the driving force behind getting terminix, ldc and other D related programs packaged for Debian. I'm glad he took the time to write up the issues and share them here.

Most of the issues he highlights are relevant for all of the Linux distros so solving them would really help applications written in D gain a wider audience and make it more viable for developers to choose it.

Given that DMD is a non-starter for Linux packages, how feasible is it to simply deprecate GDC and declare LDC as the reference/production compiler for D? DMD could become the experimental/future facing compiler used to evolve D as a language but not meant to be used for production code. This would resolve the non-free aspect of DMD as well as the ABI issue between compilers.

It should also be noted that Gnome is looking into Rust as well:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNOME-Potential-Rust

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 15:46:19 UTC, Gerald wrote:
> Given that DMD is a non-starter for Linux packages, how feasible is it to simply deprecate GDC and declare LDC as the reference/production compiler for D? DMD could become the experimental/future facing compiler used to evolve D as a language but not meant to be used for production code. This would resolve the non-free aspect of DMD as well as the ABI issue between compilers.

These are choices that are made by individual developers. Someone wanting to use one compiler or the other can simply do so.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?

Nope.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 23:08:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Hello, a few engineers at Red Hat are taking a look at using the D language on the desktop and have reached out to us. They have created a list of issues. We are on the top-level ones, and of course would appreciate any community help as well.
>
> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?

What does it mean to "move" to LDC? Why can't you use LDC now?

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:20:31 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?
>
> Nope.

So whats the solution to the "DMD compiler issues" listed?

On 12/21/2016 11:32 AM, hardreset wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:20:31 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> So whats the solution to the "DMD compiler issues" listed?

We are working on it, cannot disclose more for the time being. -- Andrei

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:30:15 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 23:08:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Hello, a few engineers at Red Hat are taking a look at using the D language on the desktop and have reached out to us. They have created a list of issues. We are on the top-level ones, and of course would appreciate any community help as well.
>>
>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?
>
> What does it mean to "move" to LDC? Why can't you use LDC now?

Moving the reference compiler to LLVM as was suggested in the list.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:30:15 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the roadmap?
>
> What does it mean to "move" to LDC? Why can't you use LDC now?

People that want to use D, want to use the latest and greatest. The reference compiler moves the fastest so they want the reference compiler to be switched to a different backend. Why a FOSS back end is required to use D depends on the person, usually it is political.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:41:56 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>
> Moving the reference compiler to LLVM as was suggested in the list.

LDC is the only compiler on Fedora/CentOS anyway!