www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - DMD 0.80 release

reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Mar 05 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think
on the next version all the time. great job!

but...

seems something is wrong

class AA
{
	protected:
	this()
	{
		printf("class AA\n");
	}
}



class B : AA
{
	public
	this()
	{
		super();
		printf("class B\n");
	}
}

void main()
{
	new B;
}


dmd A AB  -I~/dmd/src/phobos
AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible

if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK


Ant
Mar 05 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
I should add that is the AA.this
is public compiles and runs ok.

Ant


On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:33:25 +0000, Ant wrote:


 In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 
 dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think
 on the next version all the time. great job!
 
 but...
 
 seems something is wrong

 class AA
 {
 	protected:
 	this()
 	{
 		printf("class AA\n");
 	}
 }
 

 
 class B : AA
 {
 	public
 	this()
 	{
 		super();
 		printf("class B\n");
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 	new B;
 }
 

 dmd A AB  -I~/dmd/src/phobos
 AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible
 
 if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK

 
 Ant
Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
I should add...

Walter, maybe you could keep a couple of
larger applications to test with each new
release.
I found this just trying to compile DUI.

Ant

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:19:48 -0500, Ant wrote:


 I should add that if the AA.this
 is public compiles and runs ok.
 
 Ant
 
 
 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:33:25 +0000, Ant wrote:
 

 In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 
 dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think
 on the next version all the time. great job!
 
 but...
 
 seems something is wrong

 class AA
 {
 	protected:
 	this()
 	{
 		printf("class AA\n");
 	}
 }
 

 
 class B : AA
 {
 	public
 	this()
 	{
 		super();
 		printf("class B\n");
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 	new B;
 }
 

 dmd A AB  -I~/dmd/src/phobos
 AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible
 
 if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK

 
 Ant
Mar 05 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c2arn5$30k2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think
 on the next version all the time. great job!


Thanks! One huge advantage D has, for a new language, is it uses the
existing debugged optimizer and code generator from DMC++.


 but...

 seems something is wrong

 class AA
 {
 protected:
 this()
 {
 printf("class AA\n");
 }
 }



 class B : AA
 {
 public
 this()
 {
 super();
 printf("class B\n");
 }
 }

 void main()
 {
 new B;
 }


 dmd A AB  -I~/dmd/src/phobos
 AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible

 if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK



That looks like a bug :-(
Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:43:05 -0800, Walter wrote:


 
 That looks like a bug :-(


Any plans for a release dmd_0.80a ?
I can't use 0.80 :(

Ant
Mar 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:


 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
 bug fix update.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


I forgot to say:

on the other example I had 
class AA
on module A
because dmd segfaults if
class A is on module A...

Ant
Mar 05 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...

 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:


 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to




justify a

 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 I forgot to say:

 on the other example I had
 class AA
 on module A
 because dmd segfaults if
 class A is on module A...


Can you post a code example, please?
Mar 05 2004
parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:39:01 -0800, Walter wrote:


 
 "Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...

 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:


 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to




 justify a

 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 I forgot to say:

 on the other example I had
 class AA
 on module A
 because dmd segfaults if
 class A is on module A...


 
 Can you post a code example, please?


here:


module Same;	// makes no difference if removed
class Same
{
	this()
	{
		printf("Same\n");
	}
}


modules Other;	// makes no difference if removed
import Same;

class Other : Same // segfault
// class Other : Same.Same //***UGLY ALERT*** but doesn't segfault
{
	this()
	{
		printf("other\n");
	}
}

void main()
{
	new Other;
}



dmd Same Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos
Segmentation fault

with the alternate line "class Other : Same.Same"
is used it compiles and runs as expected
but it's kind of ugly.
however on the real world I expect things be like:
import same.Leds;

class Other : Same{}

and the problem might go away...
let me try:
... trying...
I don't have time now... but the compiler is saying:
"same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same"
maybe it's my fault I'll check it later.

Ant
Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:49:13 -0500, Ant wrote:


 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:39:01 -0800, Walter wrote:
 

 
 "Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...

 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:


 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to




 justify a

 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 I forgot to say:

 on the other example I had
 class AA
 on module A
 because dmd segfaults if
 class A is on module A...


 
 Can you post a code example, please?


 
 here:
 

 module Same;	// makes no difference if removed
 class Same
 {
 	this()
 	{
 		printf("Same\n");
 	}
 }
 

 modules Other;	// makes no difference if removed
 import Same;
 
 class Other : Same // segfault
 // class Other : Same.Same //***UGLY ALERT*** but doesn't segfault
 {
 	this()
 	{
 		printf("other\n");
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 	new Other;
 }
 
 

 dmd Same Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos
 Segmentation fault
 
 with the alternate line "class Other : Same.Same"
 is used it compiles and runs as expected
 but it's kind of ugly.
 however on the real world I expect things be like:
 import same.Leds;
 
 class Other : Same{}
 
 and the problem might go away...
 let me try:
 ... trying...
 I don't have time now... but the compiler is saying:
 "same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same"
 maybe it's my fault I'll check it later.
 
 Ant


OK the following works:

module same.Same;

class Same
{
	this()
	{
		printf("same/Same\n");
	}
}

module same.Other;

import same.Same;

class Other : Same
{
	this()
	{
		printf("same/Other\n");
	}
}

void main()
{
	new Other;
}

dmd same/Same same/Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos:./same

compiles and runs as expected

the message I had 
"same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same"
was because in same/Other I had "import Same".
It was my fault but the compiler message should be reviewd.

Ant
Mar 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Walter wrote:


Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

  


Thanks to the explicit cast and the abstract class changes, I've 
actually pick up two hidden bugs in an existing program already.  Great job!

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 05 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]

 pick up two hidden bugs


[...]

Isn't the `hidden' redundant?

So long.
Mar 06 2004
parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:28:08 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:


 J Anderson wrote:
 
 [...]

 pick up two hidden bugs


 [...]
 
 Isn't the `hidden' redundant?
 
 So long.


:)

not on the real world,
sometimes you know you need to fix 
something...
sometimes you know exactly what to do...

Ant
Mar 06 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Ant wrote:


On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:28:08 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:

  


J Anderson wrote:

[...]
    


pick up two hidden bugs
      


[...]

Isn't the `hidden' redundant?

So long.
    


:)

not on the real world,
sometimes you know you need to fix 
something...
sometimes you know exactly what to do...

Ant
  


Exactly.  Also sometimes I have bugs that I know exactly where they are 
but need to ponder the best solution so they stay in the program for a 
while.


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 06 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]

 Also sometimes I have bugs that I know exactly where they are 


[...]

I see. It is a matter of wording. I would prefer to call faulty/wrong code
as such. For me only unlocalized faulty code is a bug.

IMO a system that has no known bugs according to its specification does
not get buggy, when the specification changes and that system is
considered the base of the implementation of the changed specification.

So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


IMO a system that has no known bugs according to its specification does
not get buggy, when the specification changes and that system is
considered the base of the implementation of the changed specification.

  


What about something like Y2K (ie number overflows, floating point 
errors).  Do you require every detail in the program to be in the 
specifications?  That would be impossible.


So long.
  


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:


 What about something like Y2K (ie number overflows, floating point
 errors).


I do not quite catch what you mean with your examples. We had a system
that was not Y2K compliant, because it was not a requirement in its
specification. When Y2K approached the management decided to not make it
the base of the implementation of a Y2K compliant system, but instead
switch to a newly built system incorporating and using the meanwhile
evolved techniques, by even establishing its own language and compilers.


 Do you require every detail in the program to be in the specifications? 


Yes ...


 That would be impossible.


and disagreed. Vice versa: I know of projects that failed to fulfill the
final check and taking over by the client because our knowledge engineers
where not able to catch that the client wanted to do something illegal
with the generated system and therefore had not expressed clearly what he
wanted, but nevertheless had expressed his requirement in the task. So the
system had no known bugs according to its specification, but the
specification was itself faulty according to the task.

So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


J Anderson wrote:

  


What about something like Y2K (ie number overflows, floating point
errors).
    


I do not quite catch what you mean with your examples. We had a system
that was not Y2K compliant, because it was not a requirement in its
specification. When Y2K approached the management decided to not make it
the base of the implementation of a Y2K compliant system, but instead
switch to a newly built system incorporating and using the meanwhile
evolved techniques, by even establishing its own language and compilers.
  


Floating point errors:
Each time you perform an operation with floating point, details are lost 
in the calculations.  Now what if your specification said that the 
program was to run for 1000 years on a super computer but floating point 
wasn't in the specs.  Now you can't physically run the program for a 
1000 years so the program would most likely crash due to this bug.


Do you require every detail in the program to be in the specifications? 
    


Yes ...
  


That would be impossible.
    




I should have said impossible with all but the simplest of applications. 
Unless you say the code is the specification, then of course (if that is 
the case) the specification could never be wrong.


and disagreed. Vice versa: I know of projects that failed to fulfill the
final check and taking over by the client because our knowledge engineers
where not able to catch that the client wanted to do something illegal
with the generated system and therefore had not expressed clearly what he
wanted, but nevertheless had expressed his requirement in the task. So the
system had no known bugs according to its specification, but the
specification was itself faulty according to the task.

So long. 
  


Looking at any program I use today and they all have bug management 
systems.  Bugs keep appearing even though the specification is good.  
Bug management is a cycle, programmers fix the bugs and the users find 
new ones.  Everytime they fix a bug they don't go and add that to the 
specification (imaging the specifications for windows it would be longer 
then the code itself and no-one would be able to read it).  ie

Fixed bug when : If player A has menu X up when player B clicks up 
player B doesn't have to pay for the selected item.

This is the kinda error that escapes the testing saftynet and is 
something you don't add to the specifications because it occurs so 
infrequently.  Users may pick it up eventually.  The trouble is you 
can't predict what data the user the is going to give the system. You 
can't predict everything the user is going to do.  There are so many 
pathways a program can go and each fork is exponential.

Specifications are an abstraction, the details are where the bugs occur.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:


 Floating point errors:
 Each time you perform an operation with floating point, details are lost 
 in the calculations.  Now what if your specification said that the 
 program was to run for 1000 years on a super computer but floating point 
 wasn't in the specs.  Now you can't physically run the program for a 
 1000 years so the program would most likely crash due to this bug.


Still not catching what you mean. If the specification does not mention
floating point operations, then every use of them is related to faulty
code. If the required runtime exceeds the MTBF of the underlying hardware
by a certain threshold the specification itself is faulty. 


 I should have said impossible with all but the simplest of applications.
 Unless you say the code is the specification, then of course (if that is
 the case) the specification could never be wrong.


Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task
which output might harm human life. 


 Looking at any program I use today ...


I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of
transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors,
medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking
systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.

So long.
Mar 07 2004
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2g97i$f3q$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task
 which output might harm human life.


 Looking at any program I use today ...


 I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of
 transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors,
 medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking
 systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.


Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail, would
cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some other
implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.

I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since those
apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I felt it
necessary to add such a clause.
Mar 07 2004
next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

[...]

 DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which


[...]

Where is it? I have not detected it, when reading over the license some
time ago, and even now, with your hint, I am unable to catch it.

If it is so hidden, then it is useless for you.

So long.
Mar 08 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2igta$1cko$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 [...]

 DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which


 [...]

 Where is it? I have not detected it, when reading over the license some
 time ago, and even now, with your hint, I am unable to catch it.

 If it is so hidden, then it is useless for you.


\dmd\license.txt
Mar 08 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:


 \dmd\license.txt


Upps. Sometimes even a red traffic light can be overseen.

So long.
Mar 08 2004
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Walter wrote:


 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:c2g97i$f3q$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task
which output might harm human life.



Looking at any program I use today ...


I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of
transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors,
medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking
systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.


 
 
 Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
 does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail, would
 cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some other
 implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.


Will that license restriction remain?


 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since those
 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I felt it
 necessary to add such a clause.


Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one 
would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using 
DMD. Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a 
disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will 
produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime' 
appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again, 
you do live in a ridiculous country.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]

 without making criminals of anyone who does.


[...]

Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
imposed on a product?

So long.
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Manfred Nowak schrieb:


without making criminals of anyone who does.


 
 [...]
 
 Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
 imposed on a product?


I would say the problem is, if someone breaks the license, the license 
is automatically terminated. That means: to use DM tools, you agree to 
the license. If you make some mission-critical software with it, the 
license terminates and you may not use DM tools AT ALL. Point. I cannot 
really say with my minor knowledge of right, what happens if you 
continue to use DM tools. I'm pretty much sure it cannot be considered a 
crime, but can be prosecuted civically, as long as and if at all Walter 
cares. I think making criminals is this sense is not that unusual. 
Example - copy protected "audio" CDs. I buy them, then i (illegally!) 
rip them to load them on my own personal MP3 player, and also copy them 
so that they would play without nasty clicks in my old Hi-Fi CD player. 
I'm pretty much sure it's illegal but legitimate, and i hope that no 
side would be interested in prosecution.

-eye
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:

[...]

 if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated.


Not confirmed for the license in question here. And superfluous anyway,
because the termination of a license would only prevent further
development of programs, but would not influence already created programs.


[...]

 as long as and if at all Walter cares.


Slightly wrong. If he does not care for some time, it could be for him
like having not written it at all, because he may not be allowed to act
inconsistent.

[...]

 Example - copy protected "audio" CDs.


That is not a single product, but a category of products. As far as I know
in Germany it is now legal to copy even copy protected CDs for private
usage, where private is even then, when forwarding a copy as a gift to a
relative. In former Eastern Germany Software was a free good anyway.

So long.
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:

 Manfred Nowak schrieb:
 

 without making criminals of anyone who does.



 [...]

 Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
 imposed on a product?


 
 
 I would say the problem is, if someone breaks the license, the license 
 is automatically terminated. That means: to use DM tools, you agree to 
 the license. If you make some mission-critical software with it, the 
 license terminates and you may not use DM tools AT ALL. Point. I cannot 
 really say with my minor knowledge of right, what happens if you 
 continue to use DM tools. I'm pretty much sure it cannot be considered a 
 crime, but can be prosecuted civically, as long as and if at all Walter 
 cares. I think making criminals is this sense is not that unusual. 
 Example - copy protected "audio" CDs. I buy them, then i (illegally!) 
 rip them to load them on my own personal MP3 player, and also copy them 
 so that they would play without nasty clicks in my old Hi-Fi CD player. 
 I'm pretty much sure it's illegal but legitimate, and i hope that no 
 side would be interested in prosecution.


Audio copying is generally a much more 'open' legal field than license 
agreements, which are legally binding agreements between a customer and 
a manufacturer, generally to the letter, unless overridden by local 
legislation.

You generally don't get license agreements with your audio CD, the usage 
rights you have are implied when you buy the product, and it is up to 
local legislation to determine what your rights are. For example, in 
Norway, it was legal to download copy-protected audio (that you did not 
*own* yourself - major point) onto your PC untill the 1st of january 
this year. It was only illegal to distribute audio without permission 
untill that point.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


 Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
 
 [...]
 

without making criminals of anyone who does.


 
 [...]
 
 Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
 imposed on a product?
 
 So long.


It tends to be in most countries. For example, my Windows 2k license 
says I'm not allowed to distribute copies of it. And the GPL says I 
can't modify without disclosing the source of the modified product. Just 
to name two examples. A copyright holder controls all rights of all 
users, except 'fair use'. Do anything else, and yes, you are technically 
breaking the law. Even if the copyright holder doesn't mind.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]

 Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.


[...]

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.

So long.
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


 Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
 
 [...]
 

Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.


 
 [...]
 
 Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.
 
 So long.


And crime is depressingly often legal.

So short :-)

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:


 And crime is depressingly often legal.


[...]

And more depressingly, sometimes there is a crime where only a few think
that it is.

For example:
A women aged thirty after years of waiting finally has given birth to a
triplet. This is made possible by artificial insemination carried out by a
specialist in Berlin. She and her husband are very glad about that.

So long.
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent reply frodeau <frodeau_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...

Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]

 Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.


[...]

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.

So long.


Please, what is the meaning of the word "is" here?
Mar 13 2004
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
frodeau wrote:

 In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
 

Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]


Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.


[...]

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.

So long.


 
 Please, what is the meaning of the word "is" here?
 
 


Breaking a law, if "a law exists", is not necessarily a crime.

Well, that's how I read it at any rate.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 13 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message
news:c2stop$1nsc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
 does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,




would

 cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some




other

 implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.


 Will that license restriction remain?


Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the
legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application
developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.


 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since




those

 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I




felt it

 necessary to add such a clause.


 Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one
 would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using
 DMD.


My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a
criminal one.


 Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a
 disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will
 produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime'
 appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again,
 you do live in a ridiculous country.


I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in
liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense.
But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are.

(You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all
in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing
kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those
things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I
believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy
protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no
dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no
nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20
years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is
testament to that.)
Mar 30 2004
parent reply larry cowan <larry_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c4bddj$2pd3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message
news:c2stop$1nsc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
 does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,




would

 cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some




other

 implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.


 Will that license restriction remain?


Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the
legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application
developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.


 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since




those

 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I




felt it

 necessary to add such a clause.


 Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one
 would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using
 DMD.


My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a
criminal one.


 Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a
 disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will
 produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime'
 appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again,
 you do live in a ridiculous country.


I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in
liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense.
But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are.

(You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all
in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing
kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those
things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I
believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy
protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no
dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no
nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20
years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is
testament to that.)


As to the above, my quick pickup on D when I came in contact a couple months ago
is largely due to my very positive experience with the Zortech compiler 20 years
ago.  May the force be with you.
Mar 30 2004
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"larry cowan" <larry_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c4c6qp$10hq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 As to the above, my quick pickup on D when I came in contact a couple


months ago

 is largely due to my very positive experience with the Zortech compiler 20


years

 ago.  May the force be with you.


That's good to hear. Thanks for letting me know.
Mar 30 2004
prev sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of
transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors,
medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking
systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.

So long.
  


These apps should be tested thoughly, however it doesn't mean that there 
are no hidden bugs and history has proven that.  Your right in saying 
though that certain apps need to be fully tested as much is humanly 
possible but there are other apps that shouldn't be fully tested to such 
a level (it simply costs to much). That's not the point.

What about the mars landers. These had never been tried on mars before, 
although it was in the specifications.  There could have easily been 
software problems the technicians didn't account for, as have been with 
many other the other space missions.  The nasa team use one of the 
biggest budgets to test for these things.

I'm not saying it's not impossible to get a program correct to the 
specifications. I'm saying it's impossible to handle every possibility 
in the specification.  Moral, never assume a program is correct.

Anyway this conversation is getting a bit of topic.

--
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]

 but there are other apps that shouldn't be fully tested to such 
 a level


[...]

Also this is allowed to be incorporated into the specification.


 never been tried on mars before, although it was in the specifications.


[...]

You do not mean, that the specification was faulty in that way that it
demanded a test on mars, do you?


 I'm not saying it's not impossible to get a program correct to the 
 specifications.


Upps. Wrongly intertwined negatives?


 I'm saying it's impossible to handle every possibility 
 in the specification.


The specification may even include a function over the time variable
expressing an upper bound for the number of faulty code lines detected
after being put into operation.


 Moral, never assume a program is correct.


True in a mathematical sense, but not in the sense of contracts.

So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


True in a mathematical sense, but not in the sense of contracts.

So long.
  


Agreed.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
prev sibling parent "Tu Nam" <dreamweaver mail15.com> writes:
Welcome to .toString and you make my String class has good exhale ! Will
test it !
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify


a

 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Mar 06 2004