I like the D very much, just like other developers.

but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.

Where the mail list about development of D?

D is GPLed?

If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!

WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX?

Boris Wang wrote:
> I like the D very much, just like other developers.
> 
> but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.

From "The Zen of Python":

	Now is better than never.
	Although never is often better than *right* now.

I know how you feel: I want D 1.0, and I wants it now, but I would much rather Walter takes his time and gets it *right*.

Which reminds me...

Walter: you have my undying gratitude for implicit template function instantiation!  :)

> 
> Where the mail list about development of D?

This would be it.

> 
> D is GPLed?
> 
> If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!
> 
> WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX?
> 
> 

I assume you mean the compiler; probably because the D front end hooks
into the DigitalMars C compiler, which is closed source, and which
Walter still sells.  Also, I highly doubt D will die just because it
isn't GPLed.  There is LOTS of software that hasn't died that weren't GPLed.

D_Community > D_License

But, if you're absolutely desperate to have a GPLed D compiler, then grab gdc which is the D front end hooked up to the gcc back end.  Linky: http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/

	-- Daniel

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

Boris Wang wrote:

> I like the D very much, just like other developers.
> 
> but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.
> 
> Where the mail list about development of D?

We have these newsgroups.  What more are you expecting out of a mailing list?

> D is GPLed?
> 
> If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!

What sense does it make to GPL a programming language?

Stewart.

Boris Wang wrote:
> I like the D very much, just like other developers.
> 
> but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.
> 
> Where the mail list about development of D?
> 
> D is GPLed?
> 
> If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!
> 
> WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX? 
> 
> 
GPL is poison to a lot of business interests, vis a vis software which they must release with their products.

If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?  Is their popularity a fluke?

-DavidM

David Medlock wrote:

> GPL is poison to a lot of business interests, vis a vis software which they must release with their products.

You realize, that using a GPLed compiler does not imply, that the output it GPL, too. As long as you don't incorporate GPL code into you program you are not bound to GPL.

For example the software I'm developing is ofently licenced under
a Apache, MPL or BSD like licence. But not all. Software which I
want to get money for is always licenced unter a GPL/dual
licence, which boils down to about the same licensing terms like
Trolltech's Qt Licence: Software is OpenSource, but using it in
a CSS or commercial application requires obtaining a licence; if
the software is going to be GPL, then you may use my stuff for
free. If software developed with my stuff is again published
under a dual licence (like e.g. MySQL), it's considered
commercial, but licencing fees are much lower.

> If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?
>  Is their popularity a fluke?

Those are usually compiled with GCC, which is GPLed, yet they're not infected by GPL.

Just my 2 cents.

-- 
Wolfgang Draxinger

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

> For example the software I'm developing is ofently licenced under a Apache, MPL or BSD like licence. But not all. Software which I want to get money for is always licenced unter a GPL/dual licence, which boils down to about the same licensing terms like Trolltech's Qt Licence: Software is OpenSource, but

> using it in
> a CSS or commercial application requires obtaining a licence;

'commercial software' doesn't mean absolute no to 'GPL'ed or 'Open source' software.

> if
> the software is going to be GPL, then you may use my stuff for
> free. If software developed with my stuff is again published
> under a dual licence (like e.g. MySQL), it's considered
> commercial, but licencing fees are much lower.

I don't think it's possible to dual license a program that is using previously GPL'ed code without a permission from the original authors. Actually it is, but the second license should fulfill all the terms of GPL.

>> If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?
>>  Is their popularity a fluke?
> 
> Those are usually compiled with GCC, which is GPLed, yet they're not infected by GPL.

Hmm, infected :-/

Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.

-- 
Jari-Matti

In article <e23c5m$obf$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...
>
>Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.

What about "potential hidden back door features" of open source compilers?

http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

:-)

cheers
Mike

Mike Capp wrote:

> What about "potential hidden back door features" of open source compilers?
> 
> http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

There's still the possibility to compile with another compiler made by a competitor (this might be infected, too), but my guts say me, that those kind of "backdoors" are bound by a boolean AND operation. If the backdoor1 get's compiled into the binary by FooCC and I compile a competing compiler BarCC and then use BarCC again to compile FooCC any backdoor code will drop if both vendors didn't agree to implement the very same backdoor.

Walter, does DMC handle things in the same way like GCC or uses it a completely different approach?

-- 
Wolfgang Draxinger

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

> Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.
> 

If my own creation does not use code of any GPL software (eventually compilers) I'm allowed to compile my commercially sold, closed source, expensively sold compiler collection with it and distribute in this way without violating the GPL. The GPL states clearly, that if GPL software is just used as a tool, and not as a "blueprint" the results are unaffected of the GPL.

-- 
Wolfgang Draxinger

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> 
>> Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.
>>
> 
> If my own creation does not use code of any GPL software (eventually compilers) I'm allowed to compile my commercially sold, closed source, expensively sold compiler collection with it and distribute in this way without violating the GPL. The GPL states clearly, that if GPL software is just used as a tool, and not as a "blueprint" the results are unaffected of the GPL.
> 

Exactly :) I was just saying that you might feel a bit safer when using a compiler that is "fully documented", i.e. open source.

-- 
Jari-Matti