On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>wrote:

> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
>> Who is working on the D spec documentation, if anyone? I know Andrei and others work on the Phobos docs, but what about the D docs?
>>
>
> The D docs are actually part of the Phobos under source control, and the people who work on the library have commit privileges for it. Although nobody has checked in any changes to it other than the changelog and some minor formatting stuff.
>

I've filed a bunch of reports in bugzilla, regarding the D2 documentation. I've also provided fixes for most of the issues I've found (but I haven't looked at *all* of the documentation yet). I'm hoping someone could have a look at these sooner or later and update the specs. :)

Adam Ruppe wrote:
> To abandon DMD for that is language suicide.

Well, one reason (certainly not the only one) I keep with the current dmd back end is that I don't need to spend time convincing some other organization to fix/improve/customize it for better D support. I can just get it done.

Being in control of the toolchain has a lot of benefits.

For example, look at gdb, and trying to get it to support D - not for the patches themselves, but getting them accepted into the standard gdb.

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I was not saying it's going to be easy to make shared libraries work on Linux. I've tried to make shared libraries working on Linux starting with the same approach I used when making them work on Mac OS X. Issue 4583 is how far I got, then I couldn't get further. I'm just pointing out that fixing issue 4583 is where one could start to make shared libraries work on Linux.

Thanks for helping out with this. I appreciate it.

Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com <mailto:newshound2@digitalmars.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> 
>         Who is working on the D spec documentation, if anyone? I know
>         Andrei and others work on the Phobos docs, but what about the D
>         docs?
> 
> 
>     The D docs are actually part of the Phobos under source control, and
>     the people who work on the library have commit privileges for it.
>     Although nobody has checked in any changes to it other than the
>     changelog and some minor formatting stuff.
> 
> 
> I've filed a bunch of reports in bugzilla, regarding the D2 documentation. I've also provided fixes for most of the issues I've found (but I haven't looked at *all* of the documentation yet). I'm hoping someone could have a look at these sooner or later and update the specs. :)

Andrej,

I wanted to say for a while that I've been following and I appreciate your diligence in following through TDPL's examples and beyond, and then filing any bugs you find.

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> I've filed a bunch of reports in bugzilla, regarding the D2 documentation. I've also provided fixes for most of the issues I've found (but I haven't looked at *all* of the documentation yet). I'm hoping someone could have a look at these sooner or later and update the specs. :)
> 
> Andrej,
> 
> I wanted to say for a while that I've been following and I appreciate your diligence in following through TDPL's examples and beyond, and then filing any bugs you find.

I agree. Thank you very much, Andrej!

On 05/08/2010 22:42, Walter Bright wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> What's unclear about it?
>>
>> Basically there's no road map, especially no official. What will
>> happen in one month? Two months? Half a year? The only way to get some
>> idea about what will happen is following the newsgroups and even doing
>> that you don't know what actually will end up in the compiler. You
>> also have to follow the commits to the repository and then it's
>> already too late, it has already happened.
>
> The roadmap is 64 bit Linux, followed by shared library support under
> Linux. Concurrently and for the near future, the concentration will be
> on toolchain and usability issues, not new language features.
>
> 64 bits on other platforms will follow once it proves out on Linux.

So the 64bit support you're working on will not be for Windows?

/Max

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>  Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>
>>> I've filed a bunch of reports in bugzilla, regarding the D2
>>> documentation. I've also provided fixes for most of the issues I've found
>>> (but I haven't looked at *all* of the documentation yet). I'm hoping someone
>>> could have a look at these sooner or later and update the specs. :)
>>>
>>
>> Andrej,
>>
>> I wanted to say for a while that I've been following and I appreciate your diligence in following through TDPL's examples and beyond, and then filing any bugs you find.
>>
>
> I agree. Thank you very much, Andrej!
>

Hey, you're welcome guys. Anything to help out D and the community. And I have to say Thanks to you two and the guys who helped me out in NG.

awishformore wrote:
>> 64 bits on other platforms will follow once it proves out on Linux.
> 
> So the 64bit support you're working on will not be for Windows?

Not initially. 64 bit C on Windows uses a different ABI, the exception handling support is different, there's no linker (oops), etc. It's a much harder job.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:39:19 -0400, Adam Ruppe wrote:

> On 8/5/10, mwarning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:
>>  I assume that's what you call unusable?
> 
> I mean unusable in the literal sense: $ ./ldc
> ./ldc: error while loading shared libraries: libelf.so.0: cannot open
> shared object file: No such file or directory
Google might help.

> 
> I hear it also doesn't do D2 at all, which is unacceptable, and that it doesn't do exceptions in Windows - thus meaning it doesn't work there at all for any real programs - which is unacceptable AND unforgivable.
...

> AFAIK, the Windows unusability is in LLVM itself.
Yes, llvm doesn't support exception handling on windows.

> Honestly, I'd be surprised if there's a single person on the planet who uses a D LLVM compiler professionally today given its limitations.
There are.

> LDC is garbage, and that's all that actually exists. To abandon DMD for that is language suicide.
O.o

is funny because on fedora ldc works fine on 32 and 64 bits. Now is in official
fedora same as tango.
And some other project will do soon like:
- mango
- derelict

but yes is a linux system ( sorry )