You're getting mentions in most of the articles I'm writing (and to be published this year in CUJ & WDM), as well as some in a loftier venture that is bubbling away at the moment. :)

You've also got a menu link on STLSoft's websites, which none of the other compilers do yet. The only ones that will be getting the same are those that take a similarly good-natured and mutually beneficial as do yourself, and I can count them all on one hand. On three fingers in fact. Ironically, they're the three best compilers. Go figure!



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:avb524$2sku$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Robert M. Münch" <robert.muench@robertmuench.de> wrote in message news:av94n3$1rsp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:av7791$qa0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > > According to my experience you should teach your co-workers before you
> can
> > > give them some work to do.
> > > Since I think none of us has experience in writing optimizing C/C++
> > > compilers, it would be rather difficult for Walter to share tasks with
> us.
> > >
> > > But on the other side, I really can help in developing/maintaining
such
> > > things as utilities (sc, smake and so on) and run-time library.
> >
> > Hi, exactly. Who said that the most hard parts should be out-sourced?
IMO
> > Walter should look at all the little time killers that need to be done.
> I'm
> > sure a lot can be out-sourced to some people here. Walter, you could
start
> > with easy things and see how it works out.
> >
> > > I think we could help Walter in doing such helper things, while he
will
> > > develop compiler himself. I think he will do this best alone than in a
> > group
> > > of co-workers who still have to be taught at least the basic things
> about
> > > writing compilers.
> >
> > Well, managing tools, runtime library etc. could be done. Building up a validation suite etc. would help too. I'm not sure if it's necessary
that
> > others need to go to bare metal of compiler writing...
> >
> > And Walter, if you think that your management skills are not appropriate
> to
> > handle this. Why not let someone do it? Keep a single point of contact
to
> > this person, which is the switchboard to the rest of the people. I don't expect a 10+ team here. So management would rather be easy. I think my management skills are much better than my pure compiler writing skills. Robert
>
> I'd really like someone who was willing to manage a project to see DMD through to a linux version. It's a project worthy of anyone's management skills <g>.
>
> A good friend & colleague is working on the IDDE, but since he's unpaid, priority has to go to projects that pay the bills. I'm open to suggestion for anyone who wants to work on improving any of the rtl or ancilliary tools. A worthwhile project would be to convert all the library asm to
using
> the compiler inline assembler as much as possible (most of it was written long before the compiler had a decent inline asm).
>
> Other things that will help a lot is just taking opportunities as they present themselves to spread the word about DMC/DMD, by posting about it, linking to it from web pages, asking people who release source libraries
to
> support DMC, etc.
>
>

I double that: maybe the effort current being spent on the Win32 IDDE could be better spent on integrating into existing commercial IDEs, or the growing population of open-source IDEs?

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avcf5q$k9k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >A good friend & colleague is working on the IDDE
>
> Developing an IDE for Linux is wasted energy.  There are good Linux IDEs already.  It would be best to focus on the compiler itself, and let people integrate DMC with Eclipse, XEmacs, whatever.
>
> Besides, if you are going to port the IDE, you should port it to a cross-platform toolkit like wxWindows so you don't have to maintain two
bodies
> of source code.
>
> There are plenty of Intel assemblers for Linux.  NASM comes to mind. http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm http://home.attbi.com/~fbkotler/
>
> There are also cross-assemblers for PowerPC.  A little digging should turn
them
> up.
> http://www.penguinppc.org/
>
> Mark
>
>

"Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:avbu0d$9v1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> My opinion is: when I program PDP-11 family processors, I certainly will
use
> 'MOV src, dest', but when I program Intel family processors I want use
'MOV
> dest, src' and not opposite.
>
> Since assembler is not portable by definition, I don't want any
generalized
> form of it, I rather make different files and write different asm for different machines (processors) than make myself think in terms of 'generalized assembler'.
>
> So, I'm waiting for normal Intel assembler under Linux, like I have in DMC for DOSX and Win32.

I'm an old '11 asm programmer too. But the assembler should look like the cpu manufacturer's documentation. And it does with DMC. I think you're quite right in seeing no point to a generalized assembler form.

> > Since assembler is not portable by definition, I don't want any
> generalized
> > form of it, I rather make different files and write different asm for different machines (processors) than make myself think in terms of 'generalized assembler'.
> >
> > So, I'm waiting for normal Intel assembler under Linux, like I have in DMC for DOSX and Win32.
>
> I'm an old '11 asm programmer too. But the assembler should look like the cpu manufacturer's documentation. And it does with DMC. I think you're quite right in seeing no point to a generalized assembler form.

I could not agree more...

Just for this reason C was invented if I remember correctly...

Jan

Matthew Wilson wrote:

> I double that: maybe the effort current being spent on the Win32 IDDE could be better spent on integrating into existing commercial IDEs, or the growing population of open-source IDEs?

Might be also a good thing to do...
I know the Intel C++ compiler plugs right into Visual Studio's IDE.
Obviously there must be some docco out there on how to do that. It might be a
good thing for DMC++ and DMD for that matter to offer that somewhere in the near
future.

Jan

>I know the Intel C++ compiler plugs right into Visual Studio's IDE.

Oh no, not that!  Visual Studio is expensive and closed-source.  Something open source and free would be the ticket.  The best and most widely supported of these IDEs is Eclipse, which already handles the GNU C/C++ tools.

If I'm buying MS tools anyway, I'll probably use MS compilers.

Let alone the third- and second-world folks who can't afford MS tools.

Mark

Intel & VS: It does. I use it. It's very pleasing to have a superb compiler
in a superb IDE. Visual C++'s compiler is so bad, it is such a juxtaposition
that it goes in the best IDE.
Docco: There isn't, but I know how to do it.
DMC++ & DMD (&other stuff as well): I am actually working on a project -
which I will be going back to as soon as I've finished the current manic
stint of writing - that will do the things you've mentioned, and a whole lot
more, and will not just work with VS's IDE (though that'll be the first
one). I'd rather not talk about it now (i) _really_ don't have time to get
into it, (ii) also not quite finished with the idea, but am planning to have
it done within the next couple of months (for one thing I have planned an
article on the subject which will have to be drafted before end of Feb), and
I have to go out and earn some money in March! So, if you guys can all be
patient, I might have a nice surprise in a few weeks.


"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3E1AF31F.C78847FE@smartsoft.us...
> Matthew Wilson wrote:
>
> > I double that: maybe the effort current being spent on the Win32 IDDE
could
> > be better spent on integrating into existing commercial IDEs, or the
growing
> > population of open-source IDEs?
>
> Might be also a good thing to do...
> I know the Intel C++ compiler plugs right into Visual Studio's IDE.
> Obviously there must be some docco out there on how to do that. It might
be a
> good thing for DMC++ and DMD for that matter to offer that somewhere in
the near
> future.
>
> Jan
>
>

btw, am also intending it to be cross-platform, but obviously starting with Win32

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:avfaea$25k7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Intel & VS: It does. I use it. It's very pleasing to have a superb
compiler
> in a superb IDE. Visual C++'s compiler is so bad, it is such a
juxtaposition
> that it goes in the best IDE.
> Docco: There isn't, but I know how to do it.
> DMC++ & DMD (&other stuff as well): I am actually working on a project -
> which I will be going back to as soon as I've finished the current manic
> stint of writing - that will do the things you've mentioned, and a whole
lot
> more, and will not just work with VS's IDE (though that'll be the first
> one). I'd rather not talk about it now (i) _really_ don't have time to get
> into it, (ii) also not quite finished with the idea, but am planning to
have
> it done within the next couple of months (for one thing I have planned an article on the subject which will have to be drafted before end of Feb),
and
> I have to go out and earn some money in March! So, if you guys can all be patient, I might have a nice surprise in a few weeks.
>
>
> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3E1AF31F.C78847FE@smartsoft.us...
> > Matthew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > I double that: maybe the effort current being spent on the Win32 IDDE
> could
> > > be better spent on integrating into existing commercial IDEs, or the
> growing
> > > population of open-source IDEs?
> >
> > Might be also a good thing to do...
> > I know the Intel C++ compiler plugs right into Visual Studio's IDE.
> > Obviously there must be some docco out there on how to do that. It might
> be a
> > good thing for DMC++ and DMD for that matter to offer that somewhere in
> the near
> > future.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
>
>

>Intel & VS: It does. I use it. It's very pleasing to have a superb compiler in a superb IDE.

Oh yes, except for that $500-$1,000 price tag to get the MSVC IDE, plus $400 for the Intel compiler.

I own MSVC6 and its IDE.  Eclipse impresses me as being a lot more capable. Compared to MSVC6 the plugin support is awesome.  MSVC6 just lets you swap out console tools.  Eclipse lets you develop entire user interfaces for your plugins with the cross-platform SWT toolkit and Java.

If you're supporting the MSVC IDE, by all means do so, that will leave everyone else free to work on better IDEs.

Mark

Whoa, Mark. Tone it down a bit.

I'm not suggesting that Visual Studio + Intel is the answer for everyone. I am not even suggesting that it is the answer for me. I make use of seven compilers, and treat them all (but one - guess which) as equally useful. Of the six high-quality ones, Intel, Digital Mars and Metrowerks are head and shoulders above the rest, as far as I am concerned.

In the development I was alluding to - of which I will be more forthcoming when I have more time - a variety of environments will eventually be targeted, including the leading free/open-source ones. However, I will start with Visual Studio because it has a huge developer base, is a good IDE, and is the IDE (note that I'm not saying compiler here) that I use and am most familiar with.

I am neither proponent of, nor apologist for, Microsoft in general or Visual Studio/Visual C++ in particular, and I kind of resent your reactionary stance against something which is not representative of my opinions. Having said that, however, I am not going to knock the product of a company - however dubious/unpopular the commercial practises of that company may or may not be - just because that is the vogue. Visual Studio's IDE is a good one, certainly not the best, but of the widely used one's it surely stacks up (Have you tried to use Borland's!?). Intel's compiler is a good one, not the best, but one of them. It is churlish to suggest otherwise. They're not for everyone, and no-one is suggesting that they are. (In fact I look forward to checking out Eclipse in a couple of months.)

Let's try and keep this newsgroup in its current position: one of the few on the web where aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude are all left at the door.

Matthew

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avfceh$26ib$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >Intel & VS: It does. I use it. It's very pleasing to have a superb
compiler
> >in a superb IDE.
>
> Oh yes, except for that $500-$1,000 price tag to get the MSVC IDE, plus
$400 for
> the Intel compiler.
>
> I own MSVC6 and its IDE.  Eclipse impresses me as being a lot more
capable.
> Compared to MSVC6 the plugin support is awesome.  MSVC6 just lets you swap
out
> console tools.  Eclipse lets you develop entire user interfaces for your
plugins
> with the cross-platform SWT toolkit and Java.
>
> If you're supporting the MSVC IDE, by all means do so, that will leave
everyone
> else free to work on better IDEs.
>
> Mark
>
>