August 16, 2012
I love D Language, I think this is my favorite language. But this love is love through distance - i wrote only one program to try D in action. This language is not popular at the moment, i still have no any people near me who uses it. But now i searching the perfect language for scripting purpose, but still not found it.
C# good language, almost perfect for me, except of that have no native support for multi-platform development
Java is perfect, but.. (it will make you laugh) - it is not support operator overloading!
Python is ugly
Lua is ugly
and so on...

I think what D can be a perfect script language. Even more, i think it will can become very popular language, if it will be possible to use it as script language.

I think there is no problems to make, for example, compiler for Java Virtual Machine.
I know, you will say what D designed for run-time, as alternative to C++, but there is no problem to kill both rabbits - make it good alternative for Python, Lua, Java, C#, etc.

What you think about it?

With best regards, Alexey Egorov.
August 16, 2012
On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 00:48:44 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
> I think what D can be a perfect script language. Even more, i think it will can become very popular language, if it will be possible to use it as script language.

Try rdmd (http://dlang.org/rdmd.html)

It actually do compilation. But the idea is when compiler is lightning-fast (which dmd is), there is no practical difference to interpreter.
Though I don't know what the limit in terms of script size is, but for sure it's above 1000 lines of code, which will be enough for a lot of use cases.


> I think there is no problems to make, for example, compiler for Java Virtual Machine.

I'm not a compiler writer, but I've read recently [1] that .NET VM is too limited to implement even @safe D. I would think JVM is the same in this regard.


> I know, you will say what D designed for run-time

IIRC actually community was pretty excited when rdmd came out.



[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/xm5y0/d_260_released_d_programming_language/c5nqlaz
August 16, 2012
On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 00:48:44 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
> I think there is no problems to make, for example, compiler for Java Virtual Machine.

Think again. Like Java, the JVM does not have pointer arithmetic, which means there is no straightforward way to write a D-to-JVM-bytecode compiler.

> I know, you will say what D designed for run-time, as alternative to C++, but there is no problem to kill both rabbits - make it good alternative for Python, Lua, Java, C#, etc.

I don't think D has any chance of replacing Lua at this point. Lua can be used in combination with other languages very easily.
August 16, 2012
On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 09:23:18 UTC, Thiez wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 00:48:44 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
>> I think there is no problems to make, for example, compiler for Java Virtual Machine.
>
> Think again. Like Java, the JVM does not have pointer arithmetic, which means there is no straightforward way to write a D-to-JVM-bytecode compiler.
>

Actually you can do it, if you make use of sun.misc.Unsafe package.

http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/sun/misc/Unsafe.html

--
Paulo
August 16, 2012
On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 11:47:56 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 09:23:18 UTC, Thiez wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 00:48:44 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
>>> I think there is no problems to make, for example, compiler for Java Virtual Machine.
>>
>> Think again. Like Java, the JVM does not have pointer arithmetic, which means there is no straightforward way to write a D-to-JVM-bytecode compiler.
>>
>
> Actually you can do it, if you make use of sun.misc.Unsafe package.
>
> http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/sun/misc/Unsafe.html
>
> --
> Paulo

It looks like the 'getAddress' function requires the memory to have been obtained using allocateMemory. It seems to me this would prevent the (excelllent) builtin gargbage collector from working, which would be a waste.

It seems .net would be a better target, but according to the thread that xenon325 links to, that either can't be done, or is very hard.
August 17, 2012
> It looks like the 'getAddress' function requires the memory to have been obtained using allocateMemory. It seems to me this would prevent the (excelllent) builtin gargbage collector from working, which would be a waste.
>
> It seems .net would be a better target, but according to the thread that xenon325 links to, that either can't be done, or is very hard.

i don`t know about compilers so much (but with my friend we make something like C-scripting language with own virtual machine). so, it is impossible to make jvm byte code from D. can you explain the reason in more details?


August 17, 2012
Am 17.08.2012 17:24, schrieb Alexey Egorov:
>> It looks like the 'getAddress' function requires the memory to have
>> been obtained using allocateMemory. It seems to me this would prevent
>> the (excelllent) builtin gargbage collector from working, which would
>> be a waste.
>>
>> It seems .net would be a better target, but according to the thread
>> that xenon325 links to, that either can't be done, or is very hard.
>
> i don`t know about compilers so much (but with my friend we make
> something like C-scripting language with own virtual machine). so, it is
> impossible to make jvm byte code from D. can you explain the reason in
> more details?
>
>

The bytecodes supported by the JVM are optimized for the semantics of the Java languages.

Only operations that are required to sucessfully compile Java are available.

This means any language targeting the JVM has to somehow map its own
semantics to what is expected by the JVM, sometimes which consections.

In D's case there are many operations, like unsafe code, or the sematics
associated with stack data types, which cannot be implemented by JVM instructions.

--
Paulo

August 19, 2012
> In D's case there are many operations, like unsafe code, or the sematics
> associated with stack data types, which cannot be implemented by JVM instructions.

but script must be save, it is no need to do unsafe operations.


August 19, 2012
On Sunday, 19 August 2012 at 00:58:25 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
>> In D's case there are many operations, like unsafe code, or the sematics
>> associated with stack data types, which cannot be implemented by JVM instructions.
>
> but script must be save, it is no need to do unsafe operations.

Then you are not implementing the language D, but the language's subset, safe D.
August 19, 2012
On Sunday, 19 August 2012 at 09:27:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 August 2012 at 00:58:25 UTC, Alexey Egorov wrote:
>>> In D's case there are many operations, like unsafe code, or the sematics
>>> associated with stack data types, which cannot be implemented by JVM instructions.
>>
>> but script must be save, it is no need to do unsafe operations.
>
> Then you are not implementing the language D, but the language's subset, safe D.

Oh, and forgot to mention that structs wouldn't be allocated in stack anyway, even with a JVM's implementation for safe D, thus breaking language's semantics.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home