Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of vim).
The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison, suggesting
that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on "It has to run on
most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is out."

Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only write it on linux for linux.

On 14/09/13 00:51, Justin Whear wrote:
> Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
> A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of vim).
> The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
> comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison, suggesting
> that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on "It has to run on
> most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is out."

Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?

On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:51:21 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:
> Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/

OH NOES, that syntax is
  awful!
}

Looks like a toy for Bram's amusement, nothing of much interest as a language. For the wish list mentioned I think D is quite fine. If you want some language to be everywhere a C compiler is, just use C, all the others will require their own compilers, be it zimbu, dmd/gdc or something else.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:

> On 14/09/13 00:51, Justin Whear wrote:
> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
> > out."
> 
> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?

And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?

On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/13 00:51, Justin Whear wrote:
>> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
>> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
>> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
>> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
>> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
>> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
>> > out."
>>
>> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
>
> And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
>

If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can not be easily represented in C.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

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

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 08:04:10PM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
> > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/09/13 00:51, Justin Whear wrote:
> >> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
> >> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
> >> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage
> >> > has comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
> >> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails
> >> > on "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so
> >> > D is out."
> >>
> >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
> >
> > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
> >
> 
> If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can not be easily represented in C.
[...]

Really? Example? I thought *anything* can be reduced to C, given enough implementational abstractions.


T

-- 
What do you mean the Internet isn't filled with subliminal messages? What about all those buttons marked "submit"??

On 14 September 2013 22:58, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 08:04:10PM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
>> > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 14/09/13 00:51, Justin Whear wrote:
>> >> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
>> >> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
>> >> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage
>> >> > has comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
>> >> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails
>> >> > on "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so
>> >> > D is out."
>> >>
>> >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
>> >
>> > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
>> >
>>
>> If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can not be easily represented in C.
> [...]
>
> Really? Example? I thought *anything* can be reduced to C, given enough implementational abstractions.
>
>
> T
>
> --
> What do you mean the Internet isn't filled with subliminal messages? What about all those buttons marked "submit"??

Exceptions are one such example.  In gcc codegen, they are reduced to essentially:

trybody:
  Array __tmp1 = { .length = 5, .ptr = "foo.c"; };
  Array __tmp2 = { .length = 3, .ptr = "Die"; };
  Object & o = _d_newclass (&_D9Exception7__ClassZ);

  Exception & _e = __ctor (o, __tmp2, __tmp1, 8, 0);
  _d_throw (e);

finally:
  return 0;

  int ehf = __builtin_eh_filter (1);
  switch (ehf)
    {
    case 1:
      goto catchbody;
    default:
      goto catch;
    }

catch:
  void * ehp = __builtin_eh_pointer (1);
  __builtin_unwind_resume (ehp;

catchbody:
  o = *(__builtin_eh_pointer (1) + 18446744073709551608);
  e = _d_dynamic_cast (o, &_D9Exception7__ClassZ);
  goto finally;
}


Which doesn't have any natural flow between eh_filter() and _d_throw().

-- 
Iain Buclaw

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

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:04:10 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
> > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
> >
> > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
> >
> 
> If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can not be easily represented in C.
> 

Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs.

Related:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ABA/20130331#p1

Although I guess that's using "LLVM IR -> JS", not "LLVM IR -> C". But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...

On 2013-09-15 08:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode
> that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs.

Yes, exactly. That would be the "llc" command with the "-march=c" flag.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sep 15, 2013 7:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" < SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:04:10 +0100
> Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
> > > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
> > >
> > > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
> > >
> >
> > If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can not be easily represented in C.
> >
>
> Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs.
>
> Related:
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ABA/20130331#p1
>
> Although I guess that's using "LLVM IR -> JS", not "LLVM IR -> C". But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
>

Doesn't give the output of the final result, which is disappointing.

Also, translation to English is poor, but I think the blog also says that translating D classes don't work, which is what I'd expect in D -> C translation too.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

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