December 27, 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

Linux 64 bit.
December 27, 2008
On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:

> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
> 
> .net
> jvm
> mac osx 32 bit intel
> mac osx 64 bit intel
> linux 64 bit
> windows 64 bit
> freebsd 32 bit
> netbsd 32 bit
> 
> other?

I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me.

That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones.

So in my order of preference:

Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC
Mac OS X 32 bit Intel
Mac OS X 64 bit Intel
Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC

(Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

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

December 27, 2008
"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gj5422$1hkv$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?
>
> Games. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/x86-64.ars/5

The only reason games ever need 64-bit is for the ever-increasing graphics whoring. Sure, you'll probably need 64-bit for Gear-of-War quality graphics, but as a gamer, why the fuck should I care about that? That article heavily cites Epic, but Epic's had their heads firmly up their asses for a good long while now. They're far more interested in forcing hardware upgrades on people than anything else.


December 27, 2008
"Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote in message news:gj595s$2bad$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:
>
>> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>>
>> .net
>> jvm
>> mac osx 32 bit intel
>> mac osx 64 bit intel
>> linux 64 bit
>> windows 64 bit
>> freebsd 32 bit
>> netbsd 32 bit
>>
>> other?
>
> I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me.
>
> That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones.
>
> So in my order of preference:
>
> Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC
> Mac OS X 32 bit Intel
> Mac OS X 64 bit Intel
> Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC
>
> (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)
>
>

Ordinarily, I would agree with the need for PowerPC Mac support. But when one spends time in the Apple world, they really need to accept the fact that their systems will become abandoned at break-neck speed. That's just the way the Apple world works these days, and that will continue to be standard procedure for at least as long as Jobs in in charge.


December 27, 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
> 
> .net
> jvm
> mac osx 32 bit intel
> mac osx 64 bit intel
> linux 64 bit
> windows 64 bit
> freebsd 32 bit
> netbsd 32 bit
> 
> other?

The obvious answer to me is of course all the platforms.

If I have to choose one, then it is mac os x. Then the question is if the should be 32bit or 64bit. If you think about it the answer should be 64bit because all mac computers now days are 64bit and the next mac os x version, Snow Leopard, is even more optimized than the current, Leopard, this picture illustrates this: http://images.appleinsider.com/road-to-sl-080826-6.gif

But then on the other hand almost all libraries and applications are built for 32bit.
December 27, 2008
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote in message news:gj595s$2bad$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:
>>
>>> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>>>
>>> .net
>>> jvm
>>> mac osx 32 bit intel
>>> mac osx 64 bit intel
>>> linux 64 bit
>>> windows 64 bit
>>> freebsd 32 bit
>>> netbsd 32 bit
>>>
>>> other?
>> I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me.
>>
>> That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones.
>>
>> So in my order of preference:
>>
>> Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC
>> Mac OS X 32 bit Intel
>> Mac OS X 64 bit Intel
>> Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC
>>
>> (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)
>>
>>
> 
> Ordinarily, I would agree with the need for PowerPC Mac support. But when one spends time in the Apple world, they really need to accept the fact that their systems will become abandoned at break-neck speed. That's just the way the Apple world works these days, and that will continue to be standard procedure for at least as long as Jobs in in charge.

There's nothing new. It was standard procedure when I programmed Macs in 1993-94. Apple has never given a damn about backwards compatibility.
December 27, 2008
Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:
> 
>> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>>
>> .net
>> jvm
>> mac osx 32 bit intel
>> mac osx 64 bit intel
>> linux 64 bit
>> windows 64 bit
>> freebsd 32 bit
>> netbsd 32 bit
>>
>> other?
> 
> I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me.
> 
> That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones.
> 
> So in my order of preference:
> 
> Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC
> Mac OS X 32 bit Intel
> Mac OS X 64 bit Intel
> Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC
> 
> (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)
> 

It would be really nice to be able to build 4-way universal binaries (that is, x86 and ppc, 32 and 64bit) with dmd for mac os x, but that feels like it's not going to happen in the nearest future.
December 27, 2008
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gj1pit$14io$1@digitalmars.com...
> To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

yes


December 27, 2008
"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gj0qht$2lc1$1@digitalmars.com...
> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>
> .net
> jvm
> mac osx 32 bit intel
> mac osx 64 bit intel
> linux 64 bit
> windows 64 bit
> freebsd 32 bit
> netbsd 32 bit
>
> other?

in order of preference
1. win 32 and 64bit
2. OSX 32 and 64bit
3. Linux 32 and 64bit


December 27, 2008
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?
>
> Games. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/x86-64.ars/5
>

Interesting read.  Basically it's not the game playing they say requires 64-bit, but the game authoring.  That I can certainly believe.

On the other hand it mentions reports of 30% speed-ups on 64-bit platforms from the Counter Strike developers.  But apparently that has nothing to do with having a 64-bit address space, but rather because the x86-64 architecture has more registers and because the 64-bit CPUs at the time of writing (c. 2002) had some other performance features that were missing from the x86-32 CPUs of the time.  I'm guessing all but the difference in # of regs has leveled out by now.  Wonder what % boost that gives these days.

--bb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home