View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad 
> <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly 
>> code) available whatsoever?
>>
>> It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD that 
>> *ONLY* contains code you want to put in there. SNN.lib /has/ 
>> to be in there... and it's certainly not FOSS...
>
> So...  Use GDC instead?
>
> -Steve


See the last paragraph of this response:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jod1sg$2pma$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:10 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly code)  
>>> available whatsoever?
>>>
>>> It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD that *ONLY*  
>>> contains code you want to put in there. SNN.lib /has/ to be in  
>>> there... and it's certainly not FOSS...
>>
>> So...  Use GDC instead?
>>
>> -Steve
>
>
> See the last paragraph of this response:
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jod1sg$2pma$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com

I must be missing something, or you referenced the post incorrectly...

-Steve
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On 09/05/12 22:51, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty much complete FUD.
> No, you can't redstribute it yourself, but it's completely open for viewing,
> editing, and contributing.

Well, the backend licence fails to meet the standards of the Free Software 
definition or the Open Source definition.  Being able to freely redistribute the 
software in both verbatim and modified forms is pretty much THE major criterion 
for either.  It's not FUD to say so, just a fact.

The FUD comes in because people take that fact to mean that the situation is 
worse than it is (e.g. they might think the development process is partially 
closed, when it isn't), or try and read things into it that aren't true (e.g. 
they might think you can't write D programs to operate in a purely FOSS 
environment, when in fact you have GDC and LDC).  All of this creates for you a 
burden of explanation that has to be repeated and repeated to potential users or 
contributors.  A fully open-source reference compiler would take away all those 
problems.

On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute DMD could 
have an effect in limiting points of access to the software, with corresponding 
effects on the possible channels of contribution.  The ability to scale up the 
number of distribution and contribution channels is going to be increasingly 
important as D develops.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 22:00, Adam D. Ruppe a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 19:58:14 UTC, Michaël Larouche wrote:
>> What if I want to submit a change or a fix to the langage that require
>> to change the backend too ?
>
> There's nothing stopping that right now!
>
> The only thing the backend license really prohibits is
> distributing it yourself.
>
> Doing a personal fork, modifying it, and doing a pull
> request or a patch back upstream happens in practice
> somewhat normally.

I'm sorry but one would invest time in something he isn't even sure to 
be able to use himself.

Distribution freedom is really important.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 23:29, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:10 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 21:06:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about SNN.lib, which has no source code (even assembly code)
>>>> available whatsoever?
>>>>
>>>> It's currently impossible to make an executable with DMD that *ONLY*
>>>> contains code you want to put in there. SNN.lib /has/ to be in
>>>> there... and it's certainly not FOSS...
>>>
>>> So... Use GDC instead?
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>>
>> See the last paragraph of this response:
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jod1sg$2pma$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
>>
>
> I must be missing something, or you referenced the post incorrectly...
>
> -Steve

dmd is the reference implementation. GDC is and will always lack behind. 
By definition.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
On 09/05/12 23:06, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> So... Use GDC instead?

... and if I want to hack on Druntime or Phobos ... ? :-)

[cf. what I was told here ... 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Hacking_on_Phobos_34765.html#N34770 
]
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote in message 
news:mailman.465.1336596027.24740.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> The reason for proposing this is that currently if I wish to hack on 
> Druntime or Phobos, I _have_ to use DMD.  True parity of the open-source 
> compilers would be contributors being able to use their compiler of 
> choice.

I didn't realize that was currently an issue. I agree, that ability would be 
nice. Especially if/when we finally get good support for ARM-based phones 
and tablets (back in my day, we called them PDAs), as that would be 
completely non-DMD.

> That should put all the "not OS" complaints to bed properly.

Maybe, but I suspect most "not OSS" complaints would be coming from people 
who don't even know that much about D, and are just knee-jerking over "The 
main compiler's backend isn't OSS?!? Well fuck that, then!"

'Course, I have zero evidence to back up that assertion.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
> On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
> DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software,
> with corresponding effects on the possible channels of contribution. The
> ability to scale up the number of distribution and contribution channels
> is going to be increasingly important as D develops.

And even more practical : I can't bundle dmd with an IDE for D to 
provide an easy setup for a user. I can't create a repository where dmd 
sit in to make it easy t install on linux. This make it harder for 
beginner to get started with D.

I can't even fork dmd. And this is probably the most important one.

FOSS typically work in a dictatorship manner. This is ok, because the 
dictator HAVE TO do the right thing, or the project will fork and a new 
dictator will take the lead.

Having a non open source compiler as reference implementation is a major 
issue. Unless you are microsoft, google or some other huge company, you 
can't afford that.

Walter is arming his baby by trying to protect it.
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Again, Joseph's reply is what I'm referring to:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.473.1336599671.24740.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
May 09, 2012
Re: Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs
Le 09/05/2012 23:38, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
> Maybe, but I suspect most "not OSS" complaints would be coming from people
> who don't even know that much about D, and are just knee-jerking over "The
> main compiler's backend isn't OSS?!? Well fuck that, then!"
>
> 'Course, I have zero evidence to back up that assertion.
>

Just compare the number of contribution since the project have been 
mostly open sourced on on github. Numbers speak for themselves.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home