== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed
> patches. Thanks!
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip

alias awesome this;  // This is awesome.

Is it just me though, or does the D2 win32 build crash after successfully building the project?  For me it works, but then crashes instead of exiting gracefully.  No big deal, though, as this is the Jargon File's definition of a minor detail: http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/minor-detail.html

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed
>> patches. Thanks!
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip
> 
> alias awesome this;  // This is awesome.
> 
> Is it just me though, or does the D2 win32 build crash after successfully building
> the project?  For me it works, but then crashes instead of exiting gracefully.  No
> big deal, though, as this is the Jargon File's definition of a minor detail:
> http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/minor-detail.html
> 
It's just you. <g>. The win32 build works fine for me.

== Quote from Don (nospam@nospam.com)'s article
> > Is it just me though, or does the D2 win32 build crash after successfully building the project?  For me it works, but then crashes instead of exiting gracefully.  No big deal, though, as this is the Jargon File's definition of a minor detail: http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/minor-detail.html
> >
> It's just you. <g>. The win32 build works fine for me.

I just tested it on my work machine, and it happens there, too.  Maybe it's the new background thread thing?  Is your win32 box an old single-core machine?

== Quote from Don (nospam@nospam.com)'s article
> It's just you. <g>. The win32 build works fine for me.

Never mind, it looks to be related to some strange options my IDE is passing to DMD.

I've thought of that a couple times, and there was a reason it was a problem, I just can't remember it at the moment!

bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> On Windows, if there are multiple source files on the command line
>> they are now read with a background thread. This may speed up
>> compilation.
> I have tried on Windows, on a 2-core CPU and the CPU usage is about
> 50% still (only one core used). I have not timed much difference in
> compilation times (it's 24 modules).

It's hard to see an overall difference. To see one, I had to compile off of an SD card connected via USB.

You'll also not see it in CPU usage, because the I/O thread will be paused waiting for the disk.

Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
> ...because the file dmd/linux/lib/libphobos2.a is empty.

Fixed.

naryl wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed patches. Thanks!
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip
> 
> Walter, there is still a reference to 'new.h' in dmd 1.042 in 'ph.c'.

Please file a bug report so it doesn't get lost in the sea of newsgroup traffic.

Thanks,
Brad

bearophile wrote:
> davidl:
>> why not make opDot some compile time stuff?
> 
> You mean run time.
> 
>> this can be particular useful for COM
> 
> And GUIs, I guess. It smells of Object-C++, but the syntax is nicer.
> But such runtime code must be not included into the executable if this feature is nowhere used in the code. D executable are already quite big enough.
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile
Syntax and lack of garbage collection is why I never seriously considered Object-C++.

Seriously... It's important to be able to write code that can be optimized at compile time...and it's also important to be able to write code that can be dynamic at run-time.  D has been lacking in the second set of capabilities, though it's been dynamite at the first.

... After saying this I started thinking a bit more.  D is more dynamic that we normally give it credit for, but the syntax for dynamic interaction is painful, so it tends not to be used.

Walter Bright wrote:
> I've thought of that a couple times, and there was a reason it was a problem, I just can't remember it at the moment!

For one thing, no polymorphism. For that reason alone I would never use it.