glen worstell Wrote:
> PS - Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned the 500 different versions of linux. However, if it is possible to use d2.x/tango/phobos (or just d2.x/tango) on one of the common linux versions, I'll dump windows for my d evaluation. :)

I am not aware of a GDC version implementing the D 2.0 standards.  As far as I know, GDC is waiting on D 2.0 to finalize before going ahead and implementing a D 2.0 compliant GCC frontend.

Personally I'm avoiding D 2.0 until it both finalizes and all the libraries move into it as well.  Imagine getting to the top of the hill only to find there's no one there to share it with.  It would be depressing at the very least.

I know GDC works with Phobos, I haven't even tried with Tango yet (working on making it work with Windows first - I try and do the hardest things first for some strange reason.)

glen worstell Wrote:

> Note to implementers: the idea of requiring a compiler to use a particular library is so annoying that I may just use c# for my 1500 line project. The argument that d is faster than c# is meaningless for most application programs. I'd prefer to use d because I like the language better and because it generates .exe files, but I consider c# to be very well done and perfectly

Hold the phone, I know this is OT but...

C# does NOT generate executable files?

That's news to me!  I don't use C# at all, but I was under the impression it could make executables!  That's why I haven't flamed it using my Java Programmer hat.

If you're right, C# just got taken down a few pegs in my opinion.

Chris Miller escribió:
> glen worstell Wrote:
> 
>> Note to implementers: the idea of requiring a compiler to use a particular library is so annoying that I may just use c# for my 1500 line project. The argument that d is faster than c# is meaningless for most application programs. I'd prefer to use d because I like the language better and because it generates .exe files, but I consider c# to be very well done and perfectly 
> 
> Hold the phone, I know this is OT but...
> 
> C# does NOT generate executable files?
> 
> That's news to me!  I don't use C# at all, but I was under the impression it could make executables!  That's why I haven't flamed it using my Java Programmer hat.
> 
> If you're right, C# just got taken down a few pegs in my opinion.

C# does generate executables, although you'll need the .Net runtime library to execute them...

Chris Miller Wrote:

> glen worstell Wrote:
> 
> > ... but I consider c# to be very well done and ...
> 
> Hold the phone, I know this is OT but...
> 
> C# does NOT generate executable files?
> 
> That's news to me!  I don't use C# at all, but I was under the impression it could make executables!  That's why I haven't flamed it using my Java Programmer hat.
> 
> If you're right, C# just got taken down a few pegs in my opinion.


Don't be too hasty. The definition of "executable" could get us tangled in semantics. c# requires that .NET(very large) be installed. One can deliver what might be called "executables" given that the user has .NET installed. If not, one must require the user to install it. My desire for what I called an "executable" was to ship a .exe file that worked without requiring the user to install anything else. I can do this with d/phobos or d/tango.

c# is very fast even tho what is executed is not native code. I have no wish to talk more in this forum about c#, except to point out what I just did. If there are future questions I'll answer them offline.

Ah yes;  I was over-simplfying the situation, as you point out. There is an experimental version of D called D2, whose principal features (i.e. const) seem to change with the wind <g>. The only so-called stable specification for D is actually the D1 incarnation, which is deemed to be 'solidified' with a stake in the ground for about a year now. The book you have is based around D1

Tango supports the stable D1 language specification only because, at this time, D2 is too much of a moving target. We do have an 'experimental' branch of Tango with D2 support in there (kudos to Keinfarbton and Schvieguy), but we won't release that until D2 becomes more stable.

My apologies for overlooking the D1/D2 distinction, Glen. Cheers!

- Kris



"glen worstell" <glen@worstell.com> wrote in message news:fpn0qs$56a$1@digitalmars.com...
> Kris Wrote:
>
>> eeek ... this is quite wrong Glen, but hopefully some of that can be remedied:
>>
>> ...
>
> Thanks for the excellent description of a situation that is more complicated than I had indicated. Your description should be very helpful to anyone first learning about d. It would be nice if it could be posted in a place that new people might be more likely to find. Perhaps Walter would put it on his web site?
>
> However, I stand by the main claim of my post: I have to choose between using d 2.x and phobos, or d 1.x and tango. As far as I can tell, and your post does not contradict this; I cannot use d2.x with tango (on windows). The comment that I am "quite wrong" seems to be an issue with semantics rather than substance, at least from a user's point of view.
>
> Furthermore, d 2.x is different enough from d 1.x that I, and probably many users, would prefer to use it. I also have the impression that bugs will be fixed faster in d2.x, although I could be wrong about this. As d is evolving I'd like to use the latest version, which can be done with phobos and not with tango.
>
> If I am incorrect and it is possible to use d 2.x with tango, please let me know how to do it, and I will apologize and post a correction with instructions. My ultimate goal was (is) to describe to newbies how to simply install both versions of compiler/library on windows xp, and why they need to choose before building a substantial application, because d/phobos is not the same language or library as d/tango, and d/phobos/tango is not the same language as d/phobos (if you use the d2.x version of d/phobos). I do think that perhaps I should modify my newbie instructions to include the third choice, d/phobos/tango, as it might be a better choice than d/tango. I've not tried it yet, but will do so soon.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to clarify the issues as you see them. To summarize my understanding: it seems to me that the user, on windows, today, has 4 choices:
>
> d1.x/phobos
> d2.x/phobos
> d1.x/tango
> d1.x/phobos/tango
>
> Does this seem correct to you?
>
> g.
>
> PS - Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned the 500 different versions of linux. However, if it is possible to use d2.x/tango/phobos (or just d2.x/tango)  on one of the common linux versions, I'll dump windows for my d evaluation. :)