View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 14, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 2011-12-14 14:39, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to
> support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which
> is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM.

Never thought of that, it's a good point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 14, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>
> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
> rare exceptions)!

Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to 
maintain that support these days...

- Alex
December 14, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 12/14/2011 8:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
>> rare exceptions)!
>
> Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that
> support these days...

I rely on that to test the 16 bit support of Digital Mars C/C++. It's the only 
modern compiler that supports the 16 bit x86 world, and there are a few 
customers that like it.

I.e. you don't have to get a compiler from some "museum".
December 14, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
> already supported.

There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.
December 14, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 12/14/2011 09:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
>> wrote:
>>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
>> rare exceptions)!
>
> Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to
> maintain that support these days...
>
> - Alex
I work for a company who has large enough contracts in Brazil who still 
run Windows NT to justify the continued use of Visual Studio 2005 to 
build software for NT and XP (though most of our Windows developers 
develop in VS2010 and then make sure it still works in VS2005). Apple 
has the opportunity to depreciate entire architectures because they 
aren't as ubiquitous as Microsoft products. They don't have billion 
dollar contracts that request they spend an extra 200 million a year to 
support their old stuff. At least that's the only justification I can 
think of to stay on older software.
December 15, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
>>> all.
>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I
>> mean, it's
>> already supported.
>
> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.

But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 15, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 2011-12-15 07:22:47 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:

> On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
>>>> all.
>>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I
>>> mean, it's
>>> already supported.
>> 
>> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.
> 
> But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point.

And I believe DMD can already create executables that would work on the 
iPhone simulator, since those are simply 32-bit Mac OS X executables 
linked to a different set of frameworks.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
December 15, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 2011-12-14 18:28:07 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> said:

> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
>> already supported.
> 
> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.

It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for 
development, it's another to say to developers they can't target 32-bit 
users if they choose to use DMD. Even Apple ships everything with dual 
architecture binaries these days, and some of Apple's apps also keep 
PowerPC support, iTunes for instance.

And also iOS is 32-bit.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
December 15, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> 
> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
> that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
> 
> - Alex

You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
XP 32 bits (like me).
December 15, 2011
Re: DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
On 15-12-2011 18:04, Somedude wrote:
> Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
>>
>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
>> that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> - Alex
>
> You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
> XP 32 bits (like me).

Amount of users has nothing to do with whether Microsoft will continue 
to support it. Microsoft has well-defined lifecycles for support on 
their products. I'm not sure what you being on a 32-bit OS from 2001 has 
to do with my imagination of the future in 2011. :)

There are many reasons a company like Microsoft would want to let 32-bit 
x86 die; only having to maintain one platform being one of such. It is 
undeniable that the trend is going towards 64-bit (and this is a Good 
Thing, obviously).

- Alex
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home