https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3BLR31VA8cvLJLfMibSuTdwTuF7WWLux71CYD0eeD8/preview?sle=true&pli=1

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 07:26:58 UTC, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3BLR31VA8cvLJLfMibSuTdwTuF7WWLux71CYD0eeD8/preview?sle=true&pli=1

I find it very positive. I follow Wirth's school of thought that
bootstraping is always the best option, after you get a minimal
language compiling.

Actually how is the effort of porting dmd to D going, any idea
when we could start playing with it?

--
Paulo

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote in message
>
> Actually how is the effort of porting dmd to D going, any idea when we could start playing with it?
>

It's going quite well.  The D version passes the full test suite on win32, and can compile itself on linux64, as of this week.

There are some instructions here if you're up for building it yourself: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1980

I think we're about two releases away (in terms of remaining work) from being able to ship ddmd on all supported platforms, and one more from switching over to D completely.

Unfortunately, it may take much longer (or never happen), because I am STILL waiting for Walter to move on https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754

On 12/19/13 12:56 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754

I will intervene there. All, prepare for destruction.

Andrei

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 08:56:45 UTC, Daniel Murphy
wrote:
> "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Actually how is the effort of porting dmd to D going, any idea
>> when we could start playing with it?
>>
>
> It's going quite well.  The D version passes the full test suite on win32,
> and can compile itself on linux64, as of this week.
>
> There are some instructions here if you're up for building it yourself:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1980
>
> I think we're about two releases away (in terms of remaining work) from
> being able to ship ddmd on all supported platforms, and one more from
> switching over to D completely.
>
> Unfortunately, it may take much longer (or never happen), because I am STILL
> waiting for Walter to move on
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754


Thanks for the update. Great work.

I might have some time to play with it during vacations.

--
Paulo

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:l8udt4$1rqf$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/19/13 12:56 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754
>
> I will intervene there. All, prepare for destruction.
>
> Andrei
>

That would be great.  I would very much like to start on the refactoring needed, and C+ mangling of templated structs is the only enhancement left in my patch list.

Paulo Pinto:

> I find it very positive. I follow Wirth's school of thought that
> bootstraping is always the best option, after you get a minimal
> language compiling.

Moving their Go compiler from C to Go seems a good idea, for the reasons they have listed. But moving all their other tools from C to Go seems a little too much.

Bye,
bearophile

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 12:23 +0100, bearophile wrote:
[…]
> Moving their Go compiler from C to Go seems a good idea, for the reasons they have listed. But moving all their other tools from C to Go seems a little too much.

I think not. The whole point of Go is to replace C, so it is right to replace all use of C with Go for the Go toolchain.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 08:56:45 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> I think we're about two releases away (in terms of remaining work) from
> being able to ship ddmd on all supported platforms, and one more from
> switching over to D completely.

That's really cool! D is IMO a better fit for that kind of software than both C and Go (in terms of structure). I'd say it will be much more tempting to dabbel with it if it is in D. I'd even say it will be difficult not to! :)

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 11:31:10 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 12:23 +0100, bearophile wrote:
> […]
>> Moving their Go compiler from C to Go seems a good idea, for the reasons they have listed. But moving all their other tools from C to Go seems a little too much.
>
> I think not. The whole point of Go is to replace C, so it is right to
> replace all use of C with Go for the Go toolchain.

Fully agree. Only when the public at large starts to see GC
enabled languages used in contexts where C is known for, are they
convinced that C can be replaced.

What I advocate since I got in touch with Oberon.

Having the full toolchain done in Go already takes out of the
equation the typical "my compiler compiles yours" statement.


--
Paulo