Okay, since apparently nobody cares about DMDScript, I've decided I'm going to start actively maintaining it.  I ran my source code formatter over it as the first order of the day.

Interestingly, the code is now only 403kb.

Sometime in the next two or three days I'm going to try to get it compiling again (it was broke before I touched it, honest!)

If I manage to do that, I fully intend to post DMDScript (source, license, documentation, and all) on my website as well with a backreference to this site.

If anyone (especially Walter) has any problems with this idea, please let me know and I'll do what I can about it.  If anyone wants to join me in my efforts let me know.  Thanks!

PS: I suppose that could look wrong.


My understanding is that under the GPL (as the source is), with an alternate license available, means that I technically can perform such an adoption of the project so long as the original author is named and linked to.

I am intending to keep it under the GPL license of the software.  I was hoping to actively coordinate the development and distribution of DMDScript under the GPL into several GPL'd projects, as well as possibly setting up (optional) bindings to OpenGL, libxml2, librsvg, 7zip, and lighttpd.

The objective was to further the language, not line our pockets at your expense, and I feel it is important that I make that more clear than I did in the first post.

If you want I can change the name or take on any other relationship, including active development WITH you.  However, I don't see any activity for DMDScript for over two months now.  My guess is that it's being postponed while work on the D language is being done.

I think your assumption on Walter's take on DMDScript is somewhat wrong. He has implemented an ECMA-script interpreter in D, and that's it. The last releases has only been to keep it compilable by the latest D release.

Anyway, the Walnut project over at dsource is already doing something similar to your plan, although it hasn't been very active lately. Check it out.

Lars Ivar Igesund

Dan wrote:

> 
> PS: I suppose that could look wrong.
> 
> 
> My understanding is that under the GPL (as the source is), with an alternate license available, means that I technically can perform such an adoption of the project so long as the original author is named and linked to.
> 
> I am intending to keep it under the GPL license of the software.  I was hoping to actively coordinate the development and distribution of DMDScript under the GPL into several GPL'd projects, as well as possibly setting up (optional) bindings to OpenGL, libxml2, librsvg, 7zip, and lighttpd.
> 
> The objective was to further the language, not line our pockets at your expense, and I feel it is important that I make that more clear than I did in the first post.
> 
> If you want I can change the name or take on any other relationship,
> including
> active development WITH you.  However, I don't see any activity for
> DMDScript
> for over two months now.  My guess is that it's being postponed while work
> on the D language is being done.

Thanks for the heads up!

I looked over the Walnut project, and I think you're right.  It's about what I was going to do.  I still think there's a good reason to do it from DMDScript again though - their version split at 0.113, and it's now at 0.126.  My codebase is now perfectly formmatted and I've reduced all the extraneous writing while still maintaining an exact semantic equivalent.  The code is 380k.  I'm hoping to change a little of the internal semantics and bring that down to about 350k before I start to really do anything fancy.

At the rate I'm currently going, that means I should be "doing something fancy" within a week or so.

By perfectly formatted, do you just mean not using a mix of tabs and spaces?  Otherwise, I don't know what you mean; the formatting looks perfectly fine to me, if I set my tab width to 8.

-[Unknown]


> Thanks for the heads up!
> 
> I looked over the Walnut project, and I think you're right.  It's about what I
> was going to do.  I still think there's a good reason to do it from DMDScript
> again though - their version split at 0.113, and it's now at 0.126.  My codebase
> is now perfectly formmatted and I've reduced all the extraneous writing while
> still maintaining an exact semantic equivalent.  The code is 380k.  I'm hoping
> to change a little of the internal semantics and bring that down to about 350k
> before I start to really do anything fancy.
> 
> At the rate I'm currently going, that means I should be "doing something fancy"
> within a week or so.
> 
> 

By perfectly formatted, I mean it gives each { or } character it's own line, indents everything according to the nesting, removes trailing whitespace and multiple whitespace, adds a newline after semicolons, and replaces a few if/else/switch situations with better ones.

For instance, replacing:

if(x){ if(y) do(); } --> if(x && y) do();
if(x) y = a; else y = b; --> y = (x)? a : b;

There are 9 other conditions where it will fix the branching in ways that are semantically identical.  The code internally apparently changes however, since my sieve.ds (on my old x486) for DMDScript runs at 630 ms on repeated runs, while my sieve.ds for the modified version runs at 618 ms on repeated runs. Both are without variation between runs.

I think it may have made some optimizations more transparent to the D compiler. Anyways, I'm gonna head off to bed.  It's now 1:23AM.

"Dan" <Dan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:djn7im$80h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>

Dan,

> Okay, since apparently nobody cares about DMDScript,
> I've decided I'm going to start actively maintaining it.
> I ran my source code formatter over it as the
> first order of the day.
>
> Interestingly, the code is now only 403kb.
>
> Sometime in the next two or three days I'm going to try to get it compiling again (it was broke before I touched it, honest!)
>
> If I manage to do that, I fully intend to post DMDScript
> (source, license, documentation, and all) on my website
> as well with a backreference to this site.
>
> If anyone (especially Walter) has any problems with this idea, please let me know and I'll do what I can about it. If anyone wants to join me in my efforts let me know. Thanks!
>

Ah, just when I though this NG was as dead as a Dodo, in blows a breath of fresh air :) !

I quite like DMDScript, but feel that it needs a few [relatively minor, I believe] enhancements to make it truly useful as a command-line tool. See my post:

    news:dbr0e1$1732$1@digitaldaemon.com

listing a number of proposed enhancements. Sadly, no one bothered to respond then, or since.

Cheers,

Anthony Borla