On 2013-02-28 11:58, Dicebot wrote:
> But issues with LDC and GDC need to be settled first. If D front-end in D
> considerably harms any of those, it is a complete no-no, even if porting will be
> perfect. Just not worth the loss.

Indeed, but even if LDC and GDC don't stop this from happening, I'm more worried (as someone willing to write more of his programs in D instead of picking C++) about stretching resources too thin on this one project, while there are tons of more important things to do first (from my POV).

Let's see:
1) shared libraries (loading and being loaded),
2) GC, const refs, manual MM, containers managing their memory,
3) stop hiding AA's implementation,
4) improve libraries: bigint, xml, you name it,
...
n) rewrite the compiler's frontend.

I'm sure you can find a lot more to fit into the [5..n].
Even the infamous properties could rank higher than this migration, because, frankly, I don't care what language the compiler is in, as long as I don't have to install a JVM to use it. :)

On 2013-02-28 16:02, FG wrote:

> frankly, I don't care what language the compiler is in, as long
> as I don't have to install a JVM to use it. :)

Then .Net it is :) /irony

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Feb 28, 2013 3:02 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/13 1:45 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Once HEAD is compiled by the previous release (or system D compiler), it might be a good practice for HEAD to compile itself too. Then this compiler built by HEAD will then build the library.
>
>
> Do you think there's a risk that bootstrapping causes trouble for gdc?
>
> Andrei

No more a risk than bootstrapping for dmd.  However my main concern is that I'd rather see this happen at a time when we port to more architectures other than x86 and 64bit. Leaving the cross-compiler step as a non-issue as there is already a suitable D compiler on the targeted system.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 2/28/13 5:03 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> That will impair GDC and LDC quite a lot.

Let's see what the respective project leaders say.

Andrei

On 2013-02-28 16:07, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-28 16:02, FG wrote:
>
>> frankly, I don't care what language the compiler is in, as long
>> as I don't have to install a JVM to use it. :)
>
> Then .Net it is :) /irony
>

I was wondering if I should have also mentioned .Net.
Now I know the answer. :)

On 2/28/13 5:35 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> So, you both are asking community help? It is nice to hear, but I
> consider that community was in some kind of discrimination
> against you in the past except in trivial cases like fixing bugs
> and asking something which was badly needed. The very single
> example of when you both agreed that you are wrong (after long
> insisting that you are right because you are right) is bugzilla
> issue on class inheritance and preconditions - whether base class
> invariant should be respected or not.
>
> So, I see this idea (and I can be rude and biased here) as "we
> haven't treated you seriously in the past, please rewtite 100K
> from C++ to D for us, we are to high to do the dirty job
> ourselves".

Now that's some grudge. What happened here? Were you wronged somehow in the past?

Thanks,

Andrei

On 2013-02-28 16:25, FG wrote:

> I was wondering if I should have also mentioned .Net.
> Now I know the answer. :)

I'm sure we can find some other environment you would need to install to be able to run D :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 28 February 2013 15:24, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/28/13 5:03 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> That will impair GDC and LDC quite a lot.
>>
>
> Let's see what the respective project leaders say.
>
> Andrei
>


I'll provide facts, but I'll reserve any opinion to myself.

So, feel free to send me a list of questions you want me to answer. :o)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 2/28/13 10:53 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 15:24, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 2/28/13 5:03 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>         That will impair GDC and LDC quite a lot.
>
>
>     Let's see what the respective project leaders say.
>
>     Andrei
>
>
>
> I'll provide facts, but I'll reserve any opinion to myself.
>
> So, feel free to send me a list of questions you want me to answer. :o)

"Would an initiative of porting dmd to D create difficulties for gdc?"

Andrei

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:58:27 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> On 2/27/2013 5:11 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> If you do it, I think it's an excellent opportunity to rewrite the compiler *from scratch*, using features in D, and probably using a better design. It's probably easier to design the compiler now that all the features are more or less known. I also remember that DMD didn't have a visitor of sort for the semantic analysis.
>>
>>
> My experience with such things is it, while tempting, has a large probability of destroying the project entirely.

I wholeheartedly agree with Walter on this. I'd like to see as much 1:1 translation as possible first, then refactoring can begin.