grauzone wrote:
> hasen wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/ 
>>>
>>
>> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,
> 
> To us, this doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we can build the compiler itself, and can debug it if it craps up (which happens often, sorry Walter). For example, now we might be able to find out on which piece of code exactly it segfaults when compiling. Oh, and remember the libc issues. Now users affected by this problem can compile their own binary.
> 
> When we want a completely free compiler for ideological reasons or for unrestricted redistribution, there's still LDC. LDC connects the free (GPL'ed) frontend with the free LLVM backend.
> 
> Also, I thought open source != free software.

Correct. Those guys don't know what open source is, apparently. And it's  free, too.

BTW, I think it's legal to distribute patches. As long as digitalmars.com stays online, you can distribute an updated compiler, just by telling everyone to download the code from digitalmars, then apply the patches. This would allow development to continue if Walter was captured by Martians.
So I don't think the license is very restrictive at all.


> 
>> Can you explain (to the ignorant likes of me) what is constraining you from changing the license?

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

[snip]
> The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.

http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652

Don wrote:
> BTW, I think it's legal to distribute patches. As long as digitalmars.com stays online, you can distribute an updated compiler, just by telling everyone to download the code from digitalmars, then apply the patches.

Yes, that would be perfectly legal as I understand it.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.
> 
> http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652
> 

<g>

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This can be a big deal for corporate users.
> 
> Back in the 80's when I started out in the compiler business, we'd often get companies calling us up with:
> 
> "we really like your compiler, but there's one little issue, it needs to be modified to do X. If it does X, we'd buy 1000/5000/10000 copies!"
> 
> So I'd modify it to do X, and breathlessly contact them:
> 
> "it does X now! where's the P.O? We're ready to ship!"
> 
> Then they'd hem and haw a bit, and say:
> 
> "X is cool, great, yeah, but we really also need Y!"
> 
> It became clear after a while that they never had any intention of buying any copies. There are a lot of possible reasons why they were jerking our chain, but the strategy we came up with was:
> 
> "sure, we'd love to do X for you, our consulting rates are $$$ and we estimate xxx hours to do the job. We need a down payment to start work."
> 
> If they were serious, no problem, we did good business with them. The ones who were jerking us around for whatever reason went away.
> 
> There are people who won't use D, ever, no matter what we do, even if it spit out gold bars and ended world hunger. But they won't say that, they'll just sit on the sidelines and throw potshots. It comes with the territory of building a disruptive technology.
> 
> The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.

"Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the Earth!"

"Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and flexible than C's."

"Meh, don't like the definition syntax."


Andrei

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.
> 
> http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652

Bipolar folks the Americans. All of the states are either 100% for or against...

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This can be a big deal for corporate users.
> 
> Back in the 80's when I started out in the compiler business, we'd often get companies calling us up with:
> 
> "we really like your compiler, but there's one little issue, it needs to be modified to do X. If it does X, we'd buy 1000/5000/10000 copies!"
> 
> So I'd modify it to do X, and breathlessly contact them:
> 
> "it does X now! where's the P.O? We're ready to ship!"
> 
> Then they'd hem and haw a bit, and say:
> 
> "X is cool, great, yeah, but we really also need Y!"
> 
> It became clear after a while that they never had any intention of buying any copies. There are a lot of possible reasons why they were jerking our chain, but the strategy we came up with was:
> 
> "sure, we'd love to do X for you, our consulting rates are $$$ and we estimate xxx hours to do the job. We need a down payment to start work."
> 
> If they were serious, no problem, we did good business with them. The ones who were jerking us around for whatever reason went away.

Funny.  When I was in R&D at a telco we regularly got requests from another department for new features in the system... requests which changed multiple times and occasionally weren't ultimately needed.  We finally decided to start billing them for our time at an outrageous rate, and stated that any change, no matter how small, would take at least one full day to complete.  It was amazing how quickly they began thinking about their requests before making them.  I think you're right that there's simply no point in listening to people who have no investment in what you're working on.

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> "Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the Earth!"
> 
> "Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and flexible than C's."
> 
> "Meh, don't like the definition syntax."

Classic.

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
> "Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the Earth!"
> 
> "Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and flexible than C's."
> 
> "Meh, don't like the definition syntax."


Now, now. There. Don't cry.  ;-)

They might be an unglamorous part of D, and seldom used, but for the guy who ends up needing bitfields, they're a godsend!

Like a can opener. You can live weeks without needing one, but when you've got a can, it's not nice to open it with the kitchen knife.

On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> "Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the Earth!"
>> 
>> "Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and flexible than C's."
>> 
>> "Meh, don't like the definition syntax."
> 
> Classic.

Well, he certainly has a point. Compare this:

	mixin(bitfields!(
	    uint, "x",    2,
	    int,  "y",    3,
	    uint, "z",    2,
	    bool, "flag", 1));

With this:

	uint x : 2;
	int  y : 3;
	uint z : 2;
	bool flag : 1;

The second is certainly prettier and more readable.

Does it matter much? Not to me; I rarely use bit fields. If I were using them a lot, perhaps I'd be more concerned.

While I don't care very much about bitfields, that "mixin(tmpl!(...))" syntax is awful. "mixin tmpl!(...)" is better, but has too many limitations, and it isn't always clear for the user which one should be used. Couldn't D2 get a better syntax for mixins?


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/