View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On 22-Jun-12 19:21, Mehrdad wrote:
> "Might" be conceived? Is it really just me? Okay, well then you tell me:
>
> Isn't the quote
>> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't be able to
> do what you wanted in the first place
> just saying I'm too stupid for this to help me anyway?

I actually meant my previous post to be the last in this thread.
But here it goes:

1. I classify the above as speculation on my part, namely to put it in 
other words (not featuring any individual):
"this work take a lot of low-level hacking meaning that investigating 
symbols output by compiler and their meaning is least of problem there 
usually"
That's ALL I meant to say here. You can frame it like advice, insult, 
promotion or whatever you fell like (it's not like I or someone else can 
stop you).

2. The sarcasm is not lost on me, but for some reason I _think_ you 
are/were outraged way before my post. Being outraged doesn't help sort 
out things 99% of time (this is my assertion you may disagree).

3. If anything the mailing list/NG is not technical support (especially 
"general discussion ones") I'm not obliged to offer you any help. It's 
all about sharing opinions. So take it or ignore it and let's move on.



-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 15:37:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> You like blaming someone, or claiming someone has bad 
> intentions. Eg:
>
>> Which leads me to believe that whoever has this information 
>> doesn't want people to use it for D development...
>
>> The way I'm understanding it is that the message is 
>> essentially "If you want to develop your own
>> systems with our systems programming language, then you gotta 
>> buy it, sorry. Batteries not included."
>
> There is no need to deduce such messages from insufficient 
> support or documentation of a free product run 100% by 
> volunteers.


I see.

I would agree if you said it was nonconstructive, but I don't see 
how it's /impolite/ -- at all.

My intention wasn't to claim Walter (assuming that's whom you 
meant I was referring to) has bad intentions (I -- at least 
partially -- understand he can't just release the code, etc.).

The trouble was that his "solution" to the problem was "buy the 
source code".
That's not /bad/ intentions... it simply goes against the nature 
of D/DMD.


If his response had instead been "well, I'd love to share this 
info, but due to legal issues I can't", then I couldn't help but 
sympathize.
The issue is that I've asked this question a bunch of times (e.g. 
the one I linked to earlier), and _only now_ has anyone given any 
reasonable response at all for solving the problem ("buy the 
code") -- so it only naturally makes me wonder: is that the 
intention of promoting?


Again, wasn't trying to be "impolite" to Walter (or you or the 
others). I just find that the "buy the source code" comment 
(which, to be sure, is better than the nothing I'd gotten before) 
is sending completely the wrong message.


If you had any other examples for where you believe I've been 
impolite, let me know. (Feel free to email me if you don't want 
to clutter here.) That would actually be helpful for me.



> I think it does not matter

I don't...

> because the optimal reaction would be the same in each case: 
> ignore the comment and continue the productive part of the 
> discussion.

I do sometimes try to do that, though I guess I'll try it more 
often...
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 15:45:30 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> I actually meant my previous post to be the last in this thread.
> But here it goes:

Sorry :\

> 1. I classify the above as speculation on my part, namely to 
> put it in other words (not featuring any individual):
> "this work take a lot of low-level hacking meaning that 
> investigating symbols output by compiler and their meaning is 
> least of problem there usually"
> That's ALL I meant to say here. You can frame it like advice, 
> insult, promotion or whatever you fell like (it's not like I or 
> someone else can stop you).

The trouble is I only see what you write, not what you think.

What you're writing here is very clearly different in tone from 
what you said before, even if it wasn't intentional.
(Usually the onus is more on the speaker to get his words across, 
not on the reader to try and decipher them.)


> 2. The sarcasm is not lost on me, but for some reason I _think_ 
> you are/were outraged way before my post.

"Outraged"? Not sure at what you're referring specifically...


> Being outraged doesn't help sort out things 99% of time (this 
> is my assertion you may disagree).

Totally agree... though (until now) I didn't see any attempt at 
"sorting out" anything. (The second comment only made things 
worse.)


> 3. If anything the mailing list/NG is not technical support 
> (especially "general discussion ones") I'm not obliged to offer 
> you any help. It's all about sharing opinions.

Yes, and I wasn't asking for you to offer me help either.
But insulting people -- yeah, It's against my expectations to go 
on an NG and be told I'm too stupid to do something. Even if it's 
your opinion.


> So take it or ignore it and let's move on.

Sure, if you'd like to. (I didn't get that message from you until 
now.)
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 14:11:59 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 09:50:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 11:49 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 06:35:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2012 11:07 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>>> Good luck getting the C-runtime part of the "D runtime" 
>>>>> right..
>>>>
>>>> It's not that hard. But there's a lot of detail to learn & 
>>>> take care of.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where do you find the "detail"?
>>
>> One way is to get the library source code for the C compiler 
>> and study it.
>
>
> By "get" you mean "buy", right?
>
> I find that to be against D's (supposedly) open-source nature...

Well Walter can also decide to invest his time somewhere else, he 
needs to pay his bills...
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 16:08:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> The trouble is I only see what you write, not what you think.
>
> What you're writing here is very clearly different in tone from 
> what you said before, even if it wasn't intentional.
> (Usually the onus is more on the speaker to get his words 
> across, not on the reader to try and decipher them.)

Comparing what Dmitry wrote earlier:

> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't 
> be able to do what you wanted in the first place (e.g. 
> real-time micro-kernel).

and

> Yeah, I understand how it could be frustrating, but once you 
> are on this kind of level you usually already running circles 
> around all of this stuff.

to later interpretation:

>> 1. I classify the above as speculation on my part, namely to 
>> put it in other words (not featuring any individual):
>> "this work take a lot of low-level hacking meaning that 
>> investigating symbols output by compiler and their meaning is 
>> least of problem there usually"

may seem to be very different at first. But in Russian the first 
and the last sentences would have similar meanings.

In general, it is difficult to predict how something is going to 
be perceived. So it is usually OK for a person to say something 
assuming that others will understand the intended meaning, 
provided that clarification is given on request.

In this case, Dmitry provided a very reasonable clarification 
about the meaning of word 'level'. And interpretation of a 
statement which I quoted first is reasonably equivalent to what 
Dmitry provided later. (I'm from Ukraine, we speak Russian well. 
Dmitry is from Russia. Hope you will believe me.)
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On 6/22/2012 7:11 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>> One way is to get the library source code for the C compiler and study it.
> By "get" you mean "buy", right?

For Digital Mars C, yes you can buy it. For gcc, you can look at the C library 
source code for free. I'm sure the latter does the same things.

> I find that to be against D's (supposedly) open-source nature...

D is open source, however, that isn't necessarily true of C. For example, the 
Win64 version of dmd will be designed to work with Microsoft VS, which will cost 
$500.
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On 6/22/2012 7:17 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 08:35:51 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> Look at say Win32 API. There is a way to reroute most of things you listed
>> directly to it. I actually do this kind of stuff in my spare time. Of course
>> your own kernel has some manner of system calls too.
>
> I'm talking about things like PE file sections used to support TLS and whatnot.
>
> They're unrelated to the Windows API.

The PE file section documentation can be found by googling "Windows PE file format".
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On 6/22/2012 4:41 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
> On Windows, all of the SEH code is in D. The C library isn't used any more.
>
> I think the main thing that's still done in C is the floating point formatting.

The startup code is done in the C library, and the thread creation stuff still 
relies on the C library, too.
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 17:23:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> D is open source, however, that isn't necessarily true of C. 
> For example, the Win64 version of dmd will be designed to work 
> with Microsoft VS, which will cost $500.
Sorry, Walter, I didn't understand this statement. Did you mean 
VS will cost $500? Did you mean Win64 version of dmc (not dmd)? 
If no, than how will dmd be designed to work with VS?
June 22, 2012
Re: Raw binary(to work without OS) in D
On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 17:06:19 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 16:08:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> The trouble is I only see what you write, not what you think.
>>
>> What you're writing here is very clearly different in tone 
>> from what you said before, even if it wasn't intentional.
>> (Usually the onus is more on the speaker to get his words 
>> across, not on the reader to try and decipher them.)
>
> Comparing what Dmitry wrote earlier:
>
>> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't 
>> be able to do what you wanted in the first place (e.g. 
>> real-time micro-kernel).
>
> and
>
>> Yeah, I understand how it could be frustrating, but once you 
>> are on this kind of level you usually already running circles 
>> around all of this stuff.
>
> to later interpretation:
>
>>> 1. I classify the above as speculation on my part, namely to 
>>> put it in other words (not featuring any individual):
>>> "this work take a lot of low-level hacking meaning that 
>>> investigating symbols output by compiler and their meaning is 
>>> least of problem there usually"
>
> may seem to be very different at first. But in Russian the 
> first and the last sentences would have similar meanings.



lol. I don't speak Russian, sorry. :\
For me, the first one would imply the last one, but not 
necessarily the other way around.



> In general, it is difficult to predict how something is going 
> to be perceived. So it is usually OK for a person to say 
> something assuming that others will understand the intended 
> meaning, provided that clarification is given on request.

I suppose?
Though if someone were trying to insult you, I'm not sure if they 
would ever confirm, "Yes, I mean to say you're an idiot", or that 
they would necessarily repeat it, even if you asked them. (Sad 
but true, I think.)
So I'm not sure if you can ask for a clarification for 
everything...


> In this case, Dmitry provided a very reasonable clarification 
> about the meaning of word 'level'. And interpretation of a 
> statement which I quoted first is reasonably equivalent to what 
> Dmitry provided later.

Well, yes; he clearly said:
>> I meant actually low level. Like "down to hardware/OS" so it's 
>> rather the opposite ;)

so that would've been fine.

What didn't help the situation was the other part...
>> "[...] you usually already running circles around all of this 
>> stuff"

With that part, it was saying, "If you don't know this stuff then 
you shouldn't be working at this level", _NOT_ "you're going to 
have bigger problems at this level". The implications are 
different.

Maybe my reasoning was weird, but that's how it came across...



> (I'm from Ukraine, we speak Russian well. Dmitry is from 
> Russia. Hope you will believe me.)

I have no reason not to. :)
But I also have a hard time integrating that fact into the rest 
of the discussion, since I obviously don't know Russian.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home