I have a few questions about D:

1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very
powerful, and provide a nice (and open) alternative to C# and Java.

--
If you hold a Unix shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?

-- unknown


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/2002

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS%@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:acqs3f$ii9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I have a few questions about D:
> 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or
> will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it into GCC may preclude that.

> 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very
> powerful, and provide a nice (and open) alternative to C# and Java.

My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of D was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:acsj7i$286s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it into GCC may preclude that.
Maybe there'll be a GCC fork whose purpose will be to write GCC in D.  I know GCC is buggy as hell, and I tend to think rewriting it in D may help eliminate a *lot* of bugs and weirdness it exhibits.
>
> > 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very
> > powerful, and provide a nice (and open) alternative to C# and Java.
>
> My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of D was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.
>
Hopefully this would be outweighed by having a robust, open language available in the .NET platform, unlike:

1)  J#.NET -- MS's proprietary implementation of Java which supposedly
violates the Java specs in several key areas
2) C#.NET -- adds some nifty features without really leaving behind a lot of
the cruft and baggage that the C family has acquired over the decades
3) C++.NET -- MS's standards-flouting implementation of C++ (and we all know
that D was written to fix C++'s problems)

I think this would be a very worth while project, and would widen D's problem domain.  If garden-variety coding wonks can commingle ASP, C++ and D classes in one project, many more would be inclined to use it besides us geeks who would use it because it's truly a better language than what's out there now.

Kind regards,
Syd


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/25/2002

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS%@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:acqs3f$ii9$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very
> powerful, and provide a nice (and open) alternative to C# and Java.

It was discussed before, and I think the concensus we've reached is that it might be a great idea, but in time. Right now, it's more important to make the compiler produce native executables, and to port it to a wide range of platforms. CLR is quite limited as of now - I've heard about *NIX implementations, but I guess they aren't used widely.

On Mon, 27 May 2002 02:21:05 -0400, Walter wrote:


> "Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS%@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:acqs3f$ii9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I have a few questions about D:
>> 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D? Or
>> will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?
> 

My main interest in porting it to GCC is that we can get far more widespread acceptance.  My interest in this isn't in the actual work but in having an actual compiler that works on my Linux/Unix boxes.  (I don't believe in Windows servers...my servers don't even run X).

Once D matures, I think it would be a great idea to make it self compiling if it can be done in a platform neutral way.  I think a GCC port is more of a stepping stone than "final answer".

> That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it into GCC may preclude that.
> 
>> 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be
>> very powerful, and provide a nice (and open) alternative to C# and
>> Java.
> 
> My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of D was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.

I don't think its a good idea to make D "targetted" for the .NET
platform.  I think its a better idea to provide some sort of accessor
library for D that makes .NET APIs accessible for those who would like to
use them.

-Andy

I see .NET as merely another potential target environment.  Someone ought to write a .NET backend for GCC.  ;)

I wouldn't want to program .NET via some library.

Sean

"andy" <acoliver@nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:actpe2$vmi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I don't think its a good idea to make D "targetted" for the .NET platform.  I think its a better idea to provide some sort of accessor library for D that makes .NET APIs accessible for those who would like to use them.

In article <acsj7i$286s$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS%@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:acqs3f$ii9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I have a few questions about D:
>> 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or
>> will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?
>
>That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it into GCC may preclude that.
>

To me, self-compilation is the mark of a truly universal development language. As far as I can tell, Bright (D) is already to the point where it can be written in itself.  At least I know I could. ( It would not be pretty, or fast, and it would have lots of bugs, but it would run).

I am not sure where this is going, but for what it is worth, the Ada compiler in GCC is written in Ada.

I do not think this is a good idea, yet. If you folks are willing to entertain the concept of { _if ( true) a=b;}, without a flame war, even if only for the sake of discussion, then Bright (D) is too unstable.  It is really unfair to let someone put a ton of work into a compiler, then say "-- oh, sorry.  Your version is not even a language anymore."  If that same version is written in "C", then a few, usually minor, changes adapt the old code to the new standard.  After all these years, the GCC C++ compiler is still written in "C".

As for me, I would be perfectly comfortable translating Bright (D) into C for the purposes of maintaining a GCC implementation.

Which reminds me -- see new post: Versions.

Andy Walker
jawalker@stl.quik.com

"Andy Walker" <Andy_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:acu9cu$2ske$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> To me, self-compilation is the mark of a truly universal development
language.
> As far as I can tell, Bright (D) is already to the point where it can be
written
> in itself.  At least I know I could. ( It would not be pretty, or fast,
and it
> would have lots of bugs, but it would run).

Oh, I think it would work fine. In my (simple) tests of performance, D does as well or better than the equivalent C.