On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 02:41:21 UTC, Murilo wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 00:16:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/7/2019 4:33 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>> Not only that, Zortech C++ is the reason C++ itself reached
>
> Hi Mr. Bright, I would like to talk to you about D, do you have an e-mail account?

You get his e-mail here: https://www.walterbright.com/ at the top there is a button: "Send email to Walter Bright".

Matheus.

8/8/19 10:39 PM, a11e99z пишет:
> idk how to LDC working right now but u have many options to compile D modules with LLVM:
No offence, but did you read Atila's post thoroughly? He said that dmc backend has the great advantage over gdc and ldc - it is faster. For desktop applications developing this is important feature.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/lcrsrevmvtnbqsqktsbe@forum.dlang.org

This is really very interesting question the answer to it I'd like to hear. Hope it would be something different than 42.

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 16:58:46 UTC, a11e99z wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 13:54:46 UTC, Ethan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 12:36:53 UTC, Bert wrote:
>
>> We have LDC. Someone sitting down and starting up D.NET and integrating it in to the .NET Core ecosystem would be fantastic. Then you could write D code in the .NET environment and get access to the .NET runtime.
>
> [...]
> 
> imo needed D++ (we have LDC)
>
> // next is simple D module interop.d
> //===================================================
>
> codeC {
>   #define SOME_MACRO /* */
>   #include <stdio.h>
>   struct A { .. }
>   printf( "%d", a.fld );
> }
>
> [...]

JFYI, there is https://wiki.dlang.org/Calypso, which basically does what you've described. Have no idea what it's capable of, latest commit is on 26 Mar 2018.

--
Alexander

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 14:54:55 UTC, xenon325 wrote:
>
> JFYI, there is https://wiki.dlang.org/Calypso, which basically does what you've described. Have no idea what it's capable of, latest commit is on 26 Mar 2018.
>
> --
> Alexander

Actually latest commit was 9 Aug 2019, on the death-to-ident-lookups-2019 branch.

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:17:07 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 13:14:45 UTC, Exil wrote:
>> See "data" means showing the actual statistics when you say "then ZTC++ appeared then C++ boomed", this means nothing without the data to back it up. It means even less when coming from someone with a clear bias.
>
> Surely you know how to use Google. Walter's given every bit of information you need and place to look at to verify his claims for yourself.
>
> You know what's cheaper than research? Abject cynicism.
>
> Stop it.

I'm not the one making claims here. He made claims, I'm merely asking him to back them up, or they're just meaningless lies.

Anyways not sure why you think I didn't search? What I found is that ZTC++ is barely ever mentioned. It is old though, and things do get lost with time.

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 18:22:56 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 13:03:17 UTC, Exil wrote:
>> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 00:27:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> That's simply because of the backend you chose, and ultimately it is the limiting factor now. LDC originally attempted to just implement their own frontend. Now it is basically what DMD should have been. I don't ever expect DMD to get ARM support, or cross compiling capability. The amount of work needed just isn't worth it, especially when there's a project that takes care of that for you. It seems like the decision is based on some kind of ego thing (as seems to keep being demonstrated) rather than a rational process.
>>
>> So why continue to use an old dead project in your current active project?
>
> I like the DMC++ backend, because it runs faster than the alternatives. If I actually need code that runs as fast as possible I'll use ldc, but that hardly ever happens. Compilation takes too long as it is, I don't want to wait for LLVM as well.

Theres nothing stopping you from writing a faster less optimizing backend for LLVM. You easily get access to everything else that LLVM offers.

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 18:50:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:17:07 UTC, Ethan wrote:
>> On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 13:14:45 UTC, Exil wrote:
>>> See "data" means showing the actual statistics when you say "then ZTC++ appeared then C++ boomed", this means nothing without the data to back it up. It means even less when coming from someone with a clear bias.
>>
>> Surely you know how to use Google. Walter's given every bit of information you need and place to look at to verify his claims for yourself.
>>
>> You know what's cheaper than research? Abject cynicism.
>>
>> Stop it.
>
> I'm not the one making claims here. He made claims, I'm merely asking him to back them up, or they're just meaningless lies.

Please reserve this kind of stuff for slashdot. He told the story the way he recalls it, and he owes you nothing. If you're going to call him a liar, you need to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Here's Bjarne Stroustrup's version: "Until June 1988 all C++ compiler on PCs were Cfront ports. Then Zortech started shipping their compiler. The appearance of Walter Bright’s compiler made C++ ‘‘real’’ for many PC−oriented people for the first time. More conservative people reserved their judgement until the Borland C++ compiler in May 1990 or even Microsoft’s C++ compiler in March 1992."

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 18:50:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
> I'm not the one making claims here. He made claims, I'm merely asking him to back them up, or they're just meaningless lies.

Are you five years old?

Or is there some other rational reason why you have zero idea how the world works?

Walter has history and the computing industry of the 20th century on his side.

The onus is not on him to prove history is a lie. The onus is on you to prove you're not a mouthy child.

> Anyways not sure why you think I didn't search? What I found is that ZTC++ is barely ever mentioned. It is old though, and things do get lost with time.

Now who's making claims without data.

All of Usenet is still online and searchable.

The people and companies involved are still around or have left interviews and other articles, either searchable online or at your state library archives.

I suppose "anthropology" is too big a word to understand. Look it up and come back here in a few years time.

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 20:06:36 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 18:50:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
>> I'm not the one making claims here. He made claims, I'm merely asking him to back them up, or they're just meaningless lies.
>
> Are you five years old?
>
> Or is there some other rational reason why you have zero idea how the world works?

If you call people "five years old" just because they doubt claims without linked backing data, you don't know how the world of arguing actually works.
If you make claims, then you have the burden of proof, not the one who doubts it.