• Syd Barrett (12/12) May 26 2002 I have a few questions about D:
• Walter (6/11) May 26 2002 That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it
• Syd Barrett (24/30) May 27 2002 Maybe there'll be a GCC fork whose purpose will be to write GCC in D. I
• andy (14/29) May 27 2002 My main interest in porting it to GCC is that we can get far more
• Sean L. Palmer (6/10) May 27 2002 I see .NET as merely another potential target environment. Someone ough...
• Andy Walker (19/26) May 27 2002 To me, self-compilation is the mark of a truly universal development lan...
• Walter (7/11) May 27 2002 language.
• Pavel Minayev (8/10) May 27 2002 It was discussed before, and I think the concensus we've reached is

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> writes:

I have a few questions about D:

1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or
will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very


--
If you hold a Unix shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?

-- unknown


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/2002

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acqs3f$ii9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I have a few questions about D:
 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or
 will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it
into GCC may preclude that.

 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very


My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of D
was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> writes:

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:acsj7i$286s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it
 into GCC may preclude that.

Maybe there'll be a GCC fork whose purpose will be to write GCC in D.  I
know GCC is buggy as hell, and I tend to think rewriting it in D may help
eliminate a *lot* of bugs and weirdness it exhibits.
 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very


 My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of D
 was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.

Hopefully this would be outweighed by having a robust, open language
available in the .NET platform, unlike:


violates the Java specs in several key areas

the cruft and baggage that the C family has acquired over the decades
3) C++.NET -- MS's standards-flouting implementation of C++ (and we all know
that D was written to fix C++'s problems)

I think this would be a very worth while project, and would widen D's
problem domain.  If garden-variety coding wonks can commingle ASP, C++ and D
classes in one project, many more would be inclined to use it besides us
geeks who would use it because it's truly a better language than what's out
there now.

Kind regards,
Syd


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/25/2002

andy <acoliver nc.rr.com> writes:

On Mon, 27 May 2002 02:21:05 -0400, Walter wrote:


 "Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:acqs3f$ii9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I have a few questions about D:
 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D? Or
 will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

 

My main interest in porting it to GCC is that we can get far more
widespread acceptance.  My interest in this isn't in the actual work but
in having an actual compiler that works on my Linux/Unix boxes.  (I don't
believe in Windows servers...my servers don't even run X).  

Once D matures, I think it would be a great idea to make it self
compiling if it can be done in a platform neutral way.  I think a GCC
port is more of a stepping stone than "final answer".  

 That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it
 into GCC may preclude that.
 
 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be

 Java.

 
 My (not comprehensive) knowledge of .net means that if a .net version of
 D was built, a number of features would have to be chopped out.

 
I don't think its a good idea to make D "targetted" for the .NET
platform.  I think its a better idea to provide some sort of accessor
library for D that makes .NET APIs accessible for those who would like to
use them.  

-Andy

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:

I see .NET as merely another potential target environment.  Someone ought to
write a .NET backend for GCC.  ;)

I wouldn't want to program .NET via some library.

Sean

"andy" <acoliver nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:actpe2$vmi$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I don't think its a good idea to make D "targetted" for the .NET
 platform.  I think its a better idea to provide some sort of accessor
 library for D that makes .NET APIs accessible for those who would like to
 use them.

Andy Walker <Andy_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <acsj7i$286s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acqs3f$ii9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I have a few questions about D:
 1)  Will D get to the point where you can write the D compiler in D?  Or
 will it stay in C so it can be integrated into GCC?

That's a great question. I'd love to rewrite it in D, but integrating it
into GCC may preclude that.

To me, self-compilation is the mark of a truly universal development language.
As far as I can tell, Bright (D) is already to the point where it can be written
in itself.  At least I know I could. ( It would not be pretty, or fast, and it
would have lots of bugs, but it would run).  

I am not sure where this is going, but for what it is worth, the Ada compiler in
GCC is written in Ada.  

I do not think this is a good idea, yet. If you folks are willing to entertain
the concept of { _if ( true) a=b;}, without a flame war, even if only for the
sake of discussion, then Bright (D) is too unstable.  It is really unfair to let
someone put a ton of work into a compiler, then say "-- oh, sorry.  Your version
is not even a language anymore."  If that same version is written in "C", then a
few, usually minor, changes adapt the old code to the new standard.  After all
these years, the GCC C++ compiler is still written in "C".

As for me, I would be perfectly comfortable translating Bright (D) into C for
the purposes of maintaining a GCC implementation.  

Which reminds me -- see new post: Versions.

Andy Walker
jawalker stl.quik.com

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Andy Walker" <Andy_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:acu9cu$2ske$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 To me, self-compilation is the mark of a truly universal development

language.
 As far as I can tell, Bright (D) is already to the point where it can be

written
 in itself.  At least I know I could. ( It would not be pretty, or fast,

and it
 would have lots of bugs, but it would run).

Oh, I think it would work fine. In my (simple) tests of performance, D does
as well or better than the equivalent C.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

"Syd Barrett" <sydbarrett74%REMOVE%THIS% hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acqs3f$ii9$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 2)  Will D be targetted for the .NET platform?  This to me could be very


It was discussed before, and I think the concensus we've reached is
that it might be a great idea, but in time. Right now, it's more
important to make the compiler produce native executables, and to
port it to a wide range of platforms. CLR is quite limited as of now -
I've heard about *NIX implementations, but I guess they aren't used
widely.