Here's something I've been wondering for some time now. Currently we have two compilers in development, DMD and GDC, and altough GDC's development is mostly porting back changes from newer DMD versions, wouldn't it be better, given how precious the time resource is, to have have just one line of development? That line being GDC, since it can't go away: it has some caracteristics that are essential for adoption of a new technology like D (it's source is fully GPL'ed, and it's more portable/available). It also has some other advantages like better (or "betterly" available) tool support and integraton with gcc (the C compiler, not the compiler colection). I'm on Windows and nevertheless I'm considering start using GDC for just these later reasons.
And so, wouldn't it be better for Walter to shift his development to GDC?
* Is the backporting overhead not that significant ? (I doubt it, even these small things make a big difference)
* Or is there any technical issue in doing so?
* Or any non technical issue (like commercial interests)?

I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."

"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dmes6a$237q$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before).

One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers worry about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never looked at the source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers happy. If I go so far as to actually do development work on gcc, and also develop (closed source) DMC++, that puts me in a position that's vulnerable to accusations of copying.

We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating his time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him for this necessary and valuable contribution.

Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message
> news:dmes6a$237q$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous
>>discussion if this has been brough up before).
> 
> 
> One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of
> impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers worry
> about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never looked at the
> source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers happy. If I go so far as
> to actually do development work on gcc, and also develop (closed source)
> DMC++, that puts me in a position that's vulnerable to accusations of
> copying.
> 
It's unfortunate, but I guess it makes perfect sense.

> We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating his
> time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him for this
> necessary and valuable contribution.
> 
Indeed.

> Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less
> risky for organizations to bet their next project on.
> 
Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."

In article <dmidp9$2540$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>
>Walter Bright wrote:

..
>> Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.
>> 
>Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so?
>


What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dmes6a$237q$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant
>> previous discussion if this has been brough up before).
> 
> One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of
> impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers
> worry about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never
> looked at the source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers
> happy. If I go so far as to actually do development work on gcc, and
> also develop (closed source) DMC++, that puts me in a position that's
> vulnerable to accusations of copying.

Judging from the attitudes of some people I've evangelized D to, there is no way for us to not appreciate that single point enough.

> We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating
> his time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him
> for this necessary and valuable contribution.

Yes, it's just amazing how good and valuable David's contribution is -- (Hmm, should I say "us", "the community", "programmers", "D"?) to all.

> Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial
> and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.

Some of the communities I've talked with, have had it as a show-stopper point if there isn't at least 2 separate sources for a compiler for a new language. !

And at least one of them being _totally_ Open Source.

BCS wrote:
> What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less
> cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.

Walter, please, look both ways!

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial
>> and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.
> 
> Some of the communities I've talked with, have had it as a show-stopper point if there isn't at least 2 separate sources for a compiler for a new language. !
> 
> And at least one of them being _totally_ Open Source.

In my experience, software development companies tend to prefer corporate backing for software products because it makes obtaining support, tracking product updates, and legal buck-passing much simpler to achieve.  I have a decent bit of leeway on Solaris where we manage all portions of the build process (and where open-source code is much more common), but asking the Windows build team to install an open source compiler would give them apoplexy.  Simply put, I'm very glad for the existence of both compilers. :-)


Sean

Georg Wrede wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less
>> cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.
> 
> Walter, please, look both ways!

I think Walter probably knows better than to stand in front of the dragsters ;-)


Sean

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:dmiquq$2fo1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> > BCS wrote:
> >> What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.
> >
> > Walter, please, look both ways!
>
> I think Walter probably knows better than to stand in front of the dragsters ;-)

Standing directly behind them is pretty ****ing dangerous. I once saw a top fuel dragster light up in reverse when the christmas tree hit green. He launched about 60 feet backwards before he was able to cut the engine, and it flew another 30 feet back. Since a lot of people hang around in back, it's a miracle nobody was hit.

BCS wrote:
> In article <dmidp9$2540$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
> 
>>Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 
> ...
> 
>>>Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less
>>>risky for organizations to bet their next project on.
>>>
>>
>>Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so?
>>
> 
> 
> What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to
> exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.
> 

Wouldn't it? Don't forget that GDC isn't really a whole separate compiler, it's just a gcc port of dmd. In any case, that point is only valid when you state that the number of developers is what makes a project more/less risky. If you have twice the number of aplications (like 2 compilers instead of one) but number of developers is still the same, it's not really less risky in that way.

I would say that what Sean Kelly said on the other post is what makes sense for my question, altough DMD is also completely free (as in beer). (does it still count as corporate backing?)


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."