Hi,

I would like to contribute to D and to do so I plan to take two students in their engineer internship next year (from feb-July).
The problem is it's still not clear what's need to be done with D.
Last time I ask I was told not to use D 2.0 because it's changing and we cannot rely on it.
Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it but what needs to be done ?

Mosfet:
> Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it but what needs to be done ?

This is just my personal opinion: if you like and you can, I suggest you to help LLVMDC instead, I think that in few months it may become the best D compiler around (better than DMD and GDC).

Bye,
bearophile

Mosfet wrote:
> Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it but what needs to be done ?

If you're not set on GDC, we at LLVMDC  ( http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc ) would certainly welcome help. While x86 is looking good and probably just needs more bugfixes, other platforms are still missing some key ingredients:

A rough overview of platform issues can be found at
http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc/wiki/PlatformSupport . Generally,
the target dependent stuff is
 * inline asm
 * exception handling
 * runtime

Where the runtime header encompasses a variety of issues.

If you need detailed information, feel free to post on the LLVMDC mailing list: llvmdc@googlegroups.com

Regards,
Christian

A quote wrote some time ago:

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> dsimcha wrote:
>>>>On another note, anyone have any idea when/if Tango for D2, and 
>>>> Tangobos for Tangofor D2, will be available?  There are things I like and dislike aboutboth Tangoand Phobos, and I really wish I could mix and match modules from themwithoutgiving up my D2 features.  For example, I like Phobos's much simpler IOAPI, less"OO everywhere" look and feel and "simple operations should be simple"mentality,but I like Tango's extra math and threading stuff and richer featureset ingeneral.  Also, I've written a decent amount of Phobos code that Idon't feel likeporting.
>>>There's no timeframe for D2 support at the moment.  I may look into at 
>>> least having the runtime be cross-compatible, but porting the user codewould require changes in structure / coding strategy that I can't seeanyone wanting to make.
>>It seems to me that some people do actually like D2 and aren't using 
>> Tango precisely because there's no D2 support.  So who knows, maybeyou'll find there's a new crop of D2/Tango volunteers that show up oncethe ball gets rolling.  Steven S. for one, perhaps.
>Yup.  There has been enough interest that I think it's worth getting the 
> runtime working at least.  The only real obstacle to that right now istime.  The runtime uses the standard C, Posix, and Win32 packages forvarious things and none of these are D2 compatible at the moment.  So thesticking point is really that I need to find the time to go through thestandard C and Posix specs and add "in" to all the function parametersthat are const in the C APIs.  I should have left /*const*/ as aplaceholder when I created the modules but... oh well.  Live and learn.

Not /*const*/ but Const!()

Sorry, wrong thread