Hi D lovers,

We managed to win the demo compo at the Numerica Artparty #2 with a D demo entry. http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=52780

Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL because some sceners were interested in D.


As I understood, C++ is usually prefered by demosceners over D because of supposed "performance problems" with D, which are in fact negligible regarding the productivity gain.

Though, despite the usual pleasure to use D we encounter several compiler bugs in dmd 1.040. These bugs were somewhat random and would disappear during a 2nd compiling attempt :
- frozen compiler (often)
- circular dependencies (less often)
- I think debug{...} directive would not compile despite -debug switch


Thanks for the good work and for this near-perfect language ^^

Hello ponce,

> 
> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL 

LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!

ponce wrote:
> Hi D lovers,
> 
> We managed to win the demo compo at the Numerica Artparty #2 with a D demo entry. http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=52780
> 
> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL because some sceners were interested in D.

Awesome!  Congratulations!

> As I understood, C++ is usually prefered by demosceners over D because of supposed "performance problems" with D, which are in fact negligible regarding the productivity gain.
> 
> Though, despite the usual pleasure to use D we encounter several compiler bugs in dmd 1.040. These bugs were somewhat random and would disappear during a 2nd compiling attempt :
> - frozen compiler (often)

The only times I've ever had this happen to me, it was the linker that had died.

> - circular dependencies (less often)
> - I think debug{...} directive would not compile despite -debug switch
> 
> Thanks for the good work and for this near-perfect language ^^

Looking forward to the release.  :)

  -- Daniel

ponce wrote:
> Hi D lovers,
> 
> We managed to win the demo compo at the Numerica Artparty #2 with a D demo entry.
> http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=52780
> 
> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL because some sceners were interested in D.
> 
> 
> As I understood, C++ is usually prefered by demosceners over D because of supposed "performance problems" with D, which are in fact negligible regarding the productivity gain.

Another problem is that a basic "hello world" app in D is usually huge by C++ standards, which is a big problem for the smaller demo categories.

But this is really nice.  D could be a great language for doing demos, because they need to run fast and you need to be able to write them fast, and D is pretty good on both counts.

Maybe d.announce would be a better newsgroup to post this nice news about winning a demo compo with D?

--bb

Bill Baxter Wrote:

> But this is really nice.  D could be a great language for doing demos, because they need to run fast and you need to be able to write them fast, and D is pretty good on both counts.

Short compile-time was hugely appreciated too.

BCS wrote:
> Hello ponce,
> 
>>
>> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL 
> 
> LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!
> 
> 
Why isn't there a version of that with non-offensive wording????
There's a hundred nearly-identical software licenses out there, but that's the only one I've seen that actually tries to be public domain.

Don wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Hello ponce,
>>
>>>
>>> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL 
>>
>> LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!
>>
>>
> Why isn't there a version of that with non-offensive wording????
> There's a hundred nearly-identical software licenses out there, but that's the only one I've seen that actually tries to be public domain.

You can relicense it however you want to.

== Quote from Don (nospam@nospam.com)'s article
> BCS wrote:
> > Hello ponce,
> >
> >>
> >> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL
> >
> > LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!
> >
> >
> Why isn't there a version of that with non-offensive wording???? There's a hundred nearly-identical software licenses out there, but that's the only one I've seen that actually tries to be public domain.

The funny thing is that I think the offensive wording is what makes it such a great license.  People understand the offensive wording better than legalese, so there's never any question about what the license actually means.

Clay Smith wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> BCS wrote:
>>> Hello ponce,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL 
>>>
>>> LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!
>>>
>>>
>> Why isn't there a version of that with non-offensive wording????
>> There's a hundred nearly-identical software licenses out there, but that's the only one I've seen that actually tries to be public domain.
> 
> You can relicense it however you want to.
Yes, but that involves creating a new license. Which is the worst possible choice.

Don wrote:
> Clay Smith wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> BCS wrote:
>>>> Hello ponce,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Source code will be released soon under the WTFPL 
>>>>
>>>> LOL, now /that's/ a license I can work with!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why isn't there a version of that with non-offensive wording????
>>> There's a hundred nearly-identical software licenses out there, but that's the only one I've seen that actually tries to be public domain.
>>
>> You can relicense it however you want to.
> Yes, but that involves creating a new license. Which is the worst possible choice.

No, you can take a WTFPL work and include it in a GPL'd work without changing the license.

You can't, however, sue someone for violating the GPL if they use only the WTFPL portions of the GPL'd work, because you don't own the copyright, and therefore you lack both standing in the court and the ability to restrict others' usage of the work.