July 27, 2012
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Don Clugston <dclugston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 July 2012 09:04, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 08:54 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since always? I mean, nobody actually uses cmd.exe on Windows, do they?
>>
>>
>> First, shell scripts are not portable. You have to be very careful which language constructs you choose to use. It's very easy you suddenly use a language construct that is an extension only available in a particular shell.
>>
>>
>> It's literally the only platform without a shell installed by default, and even then, getting a shell via MinGW or Cygwin is trivial.
>>
>>
>> I don't agree. I wouldn't want to ask my users of an application/tool to have to install MinGW or Cygwin. Preferably the shouldn't have to install anything. That basically means native code.
>
> It's easy to download it, but integrating it into your system can go
> pretty badly wrong.
> For example, if you end up with gnu make installed, you need to make
> sure it never
> gets called instead of Windows make.

Windows has make?

> Oh the fun you can have if you end up with both MinGW and Cygwin installed...

I have had both installed for years without trouble. I mostly use the former as development environment and the latter as general POSIX environment (think SSH and other such utilities).

>
> Windows still has nearly 90% market share. it's not acceptable to treat it as a second class citizen, especially on something as trivial as this.

So... we should write batch 'scripts' to treat it as first class? I won't stop you, but err... ;)

>
> Seriously, we want to remove every possible to barrier to participation.

MinGW and Cygwin are "barriers"? Really? They're extremely trivial to install, especially Cygwin...

Plus, I don't really think this script is something that is absolutely essential to participating in development of dmd/druntime/phobos...? I mean, we didn't even have it up until recently.

Anyway, I'll shut up if people really want to write it in D (not that it's my script to begin with...). I'm just of the opinion that requiring a developer to have a POSIX shell isn't a big deal in 2012.

> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

Regards,
Alex
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On 27-Jul-12 13:18, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dmitry Olshansky
> <dmitry.olsh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-12 12:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 08:54 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since always? I mean, nobody actually uses cmd.exe on Windows, do they?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, shell scripts are not portable. You have to be very careful which
>>>> language constructs you choose to use. It's very easy you suddenly use a
>>>> language construct that is an extension only available in a particular
>>>> shell.
>>> Then I think you mean those extensions aren't portable. :)
>>>
>>> Also, the script is written for zsh which is fully compatible with
>>> bash, which is available practically everywhere.
>> Nope. But say D script would indeed run on all interesting platforms.
> "Nope" is not a very convincing argument. :)
>
> D is most certainly *not* available on all interesting platforms yet,
> unless x86 is the only interesting platform to you...
>
"which is available practically everywhere." Is not an argument, it's a common *NIX ignorance.
Not aimed at you in particular, but most folk do the same all the time.

When the Q is `create upload & update tool for D` then most definitely D at least works on that platform ?
In fact I'm interested in ARMv7 also but given the discussion it's pianly obvious that it's a dev tool to work on currently supported systems. I don't recall ARM being officially supported on any D compiler.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:48:27 +0200
Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't agree. I wouldn't want to ask my users of an application/tool to have to install MinGW or Cygwin. Preferably the shouldn't have to install anything. That basically means native code.
> 
> This is a script for use by developers, not by end users. Can you honestly develop on Windows without MinGW/Cygwin? I wouldn't even bother with the platform if it wasn't for those two.
> 

I'm primarily on Windows, and personally I'm pretty much sold on the idea of using "GNU for Win" and MinGW, etc. In fact, I do use the Win ports of many GNU cmdline tools, and feel like I couldn't live without them. And though I don't currently use MinGW/MSYS, I've been meaning to give them another try.

But the problem is, Windows developers like me are rare.

Most windows developers, sad as it is, are more or less afraid of the command line in the first place, and stick to GUIs. When they need to do cmd line (the ones who even know how), they'll pop into cmd.exe, run their command, and then go back to Visual Studio. The really hardcore Windows devs may even use Powershell. But the only ones who would even *think* to install MinGW/etc, let alone be willing to bother, are the ones who already have some Unixy leanings anyway.

I'm with Jacob, D's the way to go. Along with perhaps a trivial
no-frills batch file (and sh version, of course) just in case someone
needs to bootstrap it for whatever reason. Although, personally, I
would wait for the new std.process, as the current one has some
rather painful limitations.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On 27-Jul-12 13:30, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> It's easy to download it, but integrating it into your system can go
>> pretty badly wrong.
>> For example, if you end up with gnu make installed, you need to make
>> sure it never
>> gets called instead of Windows make.
> Windows has make?
Yes, you know world is round and every compiler vendor has its own make.

>> Oh the fun you can have if you end up with both MinGW and Cygwin installed...
> I have had both installed for years without trouble. I mostly use the
> former as development environment and the latter as general POSIX
> environment (think SSH and other such utilities).
>> Windows still has nearly 90% market share. it's not acceptable to
>> treat it as a second class citizen, especially on something as trivial
>> as this.
> So... we should write batch 'scripts' to treat it as first class? I
> won't stop you, but err... ;)
batch scripts are an abomination indeed :)

But the answer is to make a _tool_ . Did anyone expected that rdmd should be a shell script? I don't think so.
Did anyone had problem with it that it doesn't compile where D compiler is not available?
>> Seriously, we want to remove every possible to barrier to participation.
> MinGW and Cygwin are "barriers"? Really? They're extremely trivial to
> install, especially Cygwin...
>
I hope you are joking. Last time I checked Cygwin even didn't have proper uninstaller leaving me removing it by hand from PATH and whatnot.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:30:33 +0200
Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Windows has make?
> 

Yes, as part of MSVC, I belive. It's been around for a long time, actually.

And it's incompatible with GNU make, of course :/

> >
> > Seriously, we want to remove every possible to barrier to participation.
> 
> MinGW and Cygwin are "barriers"? Really? They're extremely trivial to install, especially Cygwin...

I've had a lot of problems getting them installed and working in the
past. (Even just figuring out what installers you needed, and in what
order, used to be inexplicably convoluted - I think that may have been
fixed now though.) Plus, *any* prerequisite is a barrier to entry: This
unfortunately isn't Linux where you can just "sudo apt-get install
whatever" and get all prerequisites for free (free as in effort) (And
yea, I know apt-get isn't universal across Linux).
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On 7/26/2012 11:54 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Since always? I mean, nobody actually uses cmd.exe on Windows, do they?


I do.

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On 7/27/2012 2:49 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Plus, *any* prerequisite is a barrier to entry: This unfortunately isn't Linux where you can just "sudo apt-get install whatever" and get all prerequisites for free (free as in effort) (And yea, I know apt-get isn't universal across Linux).


True that. People are defeated by the smallest hickup. There's a reason why one-click installs are so successful.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

July 27, 2012
On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then I think you mean those extensions aren't portable. :)

Well, that's true. But what I mean is that is too easy to start using the extensions without even knowing it. Say you need to know how to do a specific thing in shell script and search for a solution. You found a solution and start to use it. Months later you find out that you've used an extension and non-portable feature of you're shell script.
>
> Also, the script is written for zsh which is fully compatible with bash, which is available practically everywhere. It's not just a generic sh script, but is still portable enough by being written for bash.

When I release DVM I got several complains about the shell scripts not working. I didn't even know I had used extensions.
>
> >
> >
> > It's literally the only platform without a shell installed by default, and even then, getting a shell via MinGW or Cygwin is trivial.
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. I wouldn't want to ask my users of an application/tool to have to install MinGW or Cygwin. Preferably the shouldn't have to install anything. That basically means native code.
>
> This is a script for use by developers, not by end users.

Ok, ok.
> Can you honestly develop on Windows without MinGW/Cygwin? I wouldn't even bother with the platform if it wasn't for those two.

I mostly don't use Windows at all. I'm just compiling the code on Windows, run the tests and then be done with it.

I would need to port DVM to MinGW and/or Cygwin as well.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next ›   Last »