View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 09, 2012
Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Hi,

Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of  new native 
languages and it mentions
D.

http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_h&elq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f

Unfortunely the editor also points out that D is not fully open source, 
without specifiying what
exactly is not open source.

I've already posted a comment about it, stating that there are open source 
implementations and the
complete code is available in Github.

Still not visible, maybe waiting approval.

--
Paulo
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On 5/8/2012 11:12 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_h&elq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f



http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/te6xv/d_go_vala_and_rust_a_new_generation_of_native/
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 08:12, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new native
> languages and it mentions
> D.
>
> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_h&elq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
>
>
> Unfortunely the editor also points out that D is not fully open source,
> without specifiying what
> exactly is not open source.
>
> I've already posted a comment about it, stating that there are open
> source implementations and the
> complete code is available in Github.
>
> Still not visible, maybe waiting approval.
>
> --
> Paulo

DMD's backend isn't open source.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 10:43:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 09/05/2012 08:12, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new 
>> native
>> languages and it mentions
>> D.
>>
>> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_h&elq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
>>
>>
>> Unfortunely the editor also points out that D is not fully 
>> open source,
>> without specifiying what
>> exactly is not open source.
>>
>> I've already posted a comment about it, stating that there are 
>> open
>> source implementations and the
>> complete code is available in Github.
>>
>> Still not visible, maybe waiting approval.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>
> DMD's backend isn't open source.

I know that, but DMD is only the reference compiler.

While this is an unfortunate situation, there are other D 
compilers available,
which are fully open source.

The most important parts of D are the libraries and the compiler 
frontend, and those are open source.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 13:29, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 10:43:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Le 09/05/2012 08:12, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Dr. Dobbs has a nice editorial article about the rise of new native
>>> languages and it mentions
>>> D.
>>>
>>> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/232901652?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-05-08_h&elq=60a2e0ea244a4667b97377cecc50110f
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunely the editor also points out that D is not fully open source,
>>> without specifiying what
>>> exactly is not open source.
>>>
>>> I've already posted a comment about it, stating that there are open
>>> source implementations and the
>>> complete code is available in Github.
>>>
>>> Still not visible, maybe waiting approval.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paulo
>>
>> DMD's backend isn't open source.
>
> I know that, but DMD is only the reference compiler.
>
> While this is an unfortunate situation, there are other D compilers
> available,
> which are fully open source.
>
> The most important parts of D are the libraries and the compiler
> frontend, and those are open source.
>

I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the 
process. And we are not here yet.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On 09/05/12 13:29, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 10:43:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> DMD's backend isn't open source.
>
> I know that, but DMD is only the reference compiler.

... only!

> While this is an unfortunate situation, there are other D compilers available,
> which are fully open source.
>
> The most important parts of D are the libraries and the compiler frontend, and
> those are open source.

One way round the situation might be to try and coordinate releases of DMD, GDC 
and LDC[1] so that they are feature-equivalent and have passed the same set of 
tests, with official announcements giving equal weight and endorsement to these 
compilers.

Doing this would ensure that at any given time there is available at least 1 
fully open-source compiler implementing the reference standard and blessed as 
"official" by the project.

It's probably not a short term priority, but could be a useful longer-term 
policy to adopt, especially of the "not open source" claims start to be 
increasingly problematic.

---------
[1] I'm not sure of the status of LDC regarding D2 -- I have the impression that 
GDC is further ahead and has developed better procedures for integrating updates 
to the D frontend ... ?
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On 9 May 2012 17:20, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> [1] I'm not sure of the status of LDC regarding D2 -- I have the impression
> that GDC is further ahead and has developed better procedures for
> integrating updates to the D frontend ... ?

The procedure is 'get it done' approach.   Meld helps alot, not having
too many differences between the frontends helps alot, using the D2
testsuite at every stage of the process helps alot.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 16:20:55 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
> One way round the situation might be to try and coordinate 
> releases of DMD, GDC and LDC[1] so that they are 
> feature-equivalent and have passed the same set of tests, with 
> official announcements giving equal weight and endorsement to 
> these compilers.

This would be great, but at least for LDC, the biggest problem at 
the moment in that regard is manpower –currently, most of us 
primarily work on it whenever it doesn't compile our own projects 
(and when specific bug reports come in, obviously). This works 
reasonably well, e.g. Alexey merged the 2.059 frontend more than 
2 1/2 weeks ago, which is not terribly late (where is GDC right 
now, btw?), but could quite clearly be improved. At least 
personally, though, I'd currently find it hard to commit to 
releasing simultaneously with DMD, because it might entail doing 
larger amounts of merging/testing work on short notice as long as 
there isn't at least some kind of semi-formal release schedule 
for DMD.

> [1] I'm not sure of the status of LDC regarding D2 -- I have 
> the impression that GDC is further ahead and has developed 
> better procedures for integrating updates to the D frontend ... 
> ?

Thanks to the great job Iain did on GDC, it is true that LDC is 
probably a bit less stable right now, but D2 is the main target 
in terms of developer effort for LDC now as well.

David
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
"deadalnix" <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jodll6$14eu$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the 
> process. And we are not here yet.

How so?
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
> "deadalnix"<deadalnix@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jodll6$14eu$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the
>> process. And we are not here yet.
>
> How so?
>

We have a botleneck in accepting contributions.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home