www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Digital Mars Compilers

reply "Glen Perkins" <please.dont email.com> writes:
What are the plans for the Digital Mars D compilers on Windows and 
Linux? I see in the FAQ that the front ends are open source, and I saw 
somewhere that the full compilers are "reference implementations" for 
all D compilers, and I see that they are freely downloadable now, but 
I still don't understand what this adds up to.

Clearly the D front end plus the GCC compiler will give us a free and 
open source D compiler for *nix systems, but what about Windows? Will 
the full DMD compiler remain free of charge for downloading, but not 
be open source (behind the front end)? Will it still be free of charge 
but not open source? Or will the Digital Mars compilers cease to be 
available as free downloads as soon as Version 1.0 officially ships? 
And on Linux, will DMD and D/GCC both be free of charge but only the 
latter open source, or what?

Please don't interpret this as a complaint. I'm just trying to 
understand what (complete) compilers will be available for real 
production use on which platforms under what terms.

And knowing when would be nice, too. Again, this isn't a complaint. 
Some projects add a "road map" with rough date estimates to their 
FAQs. I don't know how much of a road map I would be able to piece 
together if I were to go back and read the last several thousand 
newsgroup postings, but it would certainly be more convenient if even 
a summary of what has already been said were available in a road map 
of sorts.
Nov 14 2004
next sibling parent reply h3r3tic <foo bar.baz> writes:
Glen Perkins wrote:

 (...)Clearly the D front end plus the GCC compiler will give us a free and 
 open source D compiler for *nix systems, but what about Windows?(...)


I think MinGW + D will make Windows developers happy ;)
Nov 14 2004
parent reply "Glen Perkins" <please.dont email.com> writes:
"h3r3tic" <foo bar.baz> wrote in message 
news:cn8ta4$8nb$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Glen Perkins wrote:

 (...)Clearly the D front end plus the GCC compiler will give us a 
 free and open source D compiler for *nix systems, but what about 
 Windows?(...)


 I think MinGW + D will make Windows developers happy ;)


I'm not so sure about that. My impression is that MinGW is for getting 
*nix apps to run on Windows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I've 
worked at several commercial software companies with well-known 
shrinkwrapped products and have had dealings with many others, and I 
don't recall anyone seriously considering using MinGW to build a 
commercial Windows product. I'm not sure they would be very happy 
building those apps using a compiler that used minGW, since it would 
be clear that it wasn't really intended to be a Windows dev tool, and 
you can't fool around with something as fundamental as your compiler 
when building a commercial app.

What I *have* seen were cases where something useful from the *nix 
world was needed for *in-house* use on Windows, and minGW or cygwin 
were considered viable solutions. (I know I could hardly function on 
Windows without my cygwin!) The compiler you build your commercial 
apps with had better be a serious native product, though.
Nov 14 2004
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
 I'm not so sure about that. My impression is that MinGW is for getting 
 *nix apps to run on Windows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).


Cygwin was intended for that, yes, but not MingW. It doesn't even have 
any Posix libraries. It's a port of gcc to Windows for the development 
of Windows applications, just as DJGPP was intended to build DOS apps. 
Coding to one tool-chain certainly eases cross-platform development. 
Though I don't see the benefit of a MingW backend for D, other than to 
make OSS zealots happy.
Nov 15 2004
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cna0im$1v35$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Parker says...

 I'm not so sure about that. My impression is that MinGW is for getting 
 *nix apps to run on Windows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).


Cygwin was intended for that, yes, but not MingW. It doesn't even have 
any Posix libraries. It's a port of gcc to Windows for the development 
of Windows applications, just as DJGPP was intended to build DOS apps. 
Coding to one tool-chain certainly eases cross-platform development. 
Though I don't see the benefit of a MingW backend for D, other than to 
make OSS zealots happy.


Exactly! Through-out this thread, there has been talk of 'free' D compilers. OSS
is fine, but free (as in beer) I have a problem with..

I personally think Walter /should/ charge for DMD v1.0, if that means that we'll
get a better compiler for it; both because of the commercial incentive that
provides as well as the funding it would provide (to more quickly improve the
compiler). Alot of the major work on GCC is done through commercial support
because then the large sponsors can get their platforms/features supported and

(yet) have that luxury.

It's funny - compilers are some of the most important and complicated software
out there, taking arguably the most skill, research, time and resources to
produce per LOC, yet many people expect them to be free.

I think a grand marketing plan would be to offer some sort of feature limited
(e.g.: hobbled library) trial edition through one download, easily installable
on both Windows and *nix, and then charge a nominal fee for the 'full'
cross-platform compiler + 'free' minor version upgrades and include all of the
tools with the paid-for download.

Assuming that DMD v1.0 will perform as well as GCC C/++, and perform as
specified on both Linux and Windows, I would be money (way) ahead by paying
$100.00 for a D license rather than debugging some obscure memory leak or
segfault because I forgot to NULL a C++ pointer, or because of some obscure
incompatibility in the D/GCC interface or MinGW/Cygwin. Heck, I'd be money ahead
by buying several licenses rather than dealing with the vagaries of installing
Cygwin in support of some portable application (it is very easy to burn many
man-hours building, maintaining and supporting complicated installation
routines, after all, not to mention the potential for hard/impossible to fix
portability issues).

- Dave
Nov 15 2004
next sibling parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cnaok2$3c7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...

Exactly! Through-out this thread, there has been talk of 'free' D compilers. OSS
is fine, but free (as in beer) I have a problem with..


I don't like free software at all. Actually there is no such thing:
DUI is not free, *I* pay for it, *I* pay it for all users,
my family pays for it.
But I don't see an alternative. Even with better equivalent free software
people still uses MS products. Until that monopoly is break I don't
see an alternative to free software.


It's funny - compilers are some of the most important and complicated software
out there, taking arguably the most skill, research, time and resources to
produce per LOC, yet many people expect them to be free.


My application is more complicated then your's
(and of course, size - of the application - doesn't matter).

Ant
Nov 15 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Simon Buchan" <currently no.where> writes:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:


 In article <cna0im$1v35$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Parker says...

 I'm not so sure about that. My impression is that MinGW is for getting
 *nix apps to run on Windows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).


 Cygwin was intended for that, yes, but not MingW. It doesn't even have
 any Posix libraries. It's a port of gcc to Windows for the development
 of Windows applications, just as DJGPP was intended to build DOS apps.
 Coding to one tool-chain certainly eases cross-platform development.
 Though I don't see the benefit of a MingW backend for D, other than to
 make OSS zealots happy.


 Exactly! Through-out this thread, there has been talk of 'free' D  
 compilers. OSS
 is fine, but free (as in beer) I have a problem with..


Walter can start charging any time he wants. I'm assuming he makes his
money from the other comercial compilers he wrote that I bet you never
heard of.
Also, it's ... difficult to charge for OSS. Unless you have commercial
data, (ie, Doom has .wad's they can charge for) there is nothing that
can't be duplicated, and you only have nebulous laws to stop them.


 I personally think Walter /should/ charge for DMD v1.0, if that means  
 that we'll
 get a better compiler for it; both because of the commercial incentive  
 that
 provides as well as the funding it would provide (to more quickly  
 improve the compiler).


Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial  
rewards
dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)


 Alot of the major work on GCC is done through commercial support
 because then the large sponsors can get their platforms/features  
 supported and

 doesn't
 (yet) have that luxury.


Yeah, just like two thirds of Linux was written by Intel because people buy
thier processers to run it.


 It's funny - compilers are some of the most important and complicated  
 software
 out there, taking arguably the most skill, research, time and resources  
 to
 produce per LOC, yet many people expect them to be free.


Expect? I know about twice as many commercial compilers than free ones.
People only WANT free compilers.


 I think a grand marketing plan would be to offer some sort of feature  
 limited
 (e.g.: hobbled library) trial edition through one download, easily  
 installable
 on both Windows and *nix, and then charge a nominal fee for the 'full'
 cross-platform compiler + 'free' minor version upgrades and include all  
 of the
 tools with the paid-for download.


Cripple-ware just doesn't work. Ever.


 Assuming that DMD v1.0 will perform as well as GCC C/++, and perform as
 specified on both Linux and Windows, I would be money (way) ahead by  
 paying
 $100.00 for a D license rather than debugging some obscure memory leak or
 segfault because I forgot to NULL a C++ pointer, or because of some  
 obscure
 incompatibility in the D/GCC interface or MinGW/Cygwin. Heck, I'd be  
 money ahead
 by buying several licenses rather than dealing with the vagaries of  
 installing
 Cygwin in support of some portable application (it is very easy to burn  
 many
 man-hours building, maintaining and supporting complicated installation
 routines, after all, not to mention the potential for hard/impossible to  
 fix
 portability issues).

 - Dave


True, but there are other languages out there, and at least one free  
compiler
will suit thier needs. Why pay to get no more than you can get free?

PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only  
your
arguments.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Nov 17 2004
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <opshlp14iijccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:

Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial  
rewards
dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)


Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the dynamics
involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two dynamics I've
seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to do a
good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.

I recall one study that seems to have kind-of led to some questionable
'conventional wisdom' on this topic - Apache vs. IIS. That study was far from
conclusive and IIS has improved loads since the study I read. Plus Apache was
forked from NCSA HTTPd (someone got paid 'to work' at developing that!) and is
more mature (time-wise) than IIS. The Apache foundation is largely supported by
people who make their money off of the related software and can therefore afford
(and benefit from) improving it. Like I said, it's probably different for D
(currently) so if I'm asked to buy a license to fund D related work because it
offers a good return on investment, I'll gladly do so.

My job is primarily integrating OSS, commercial and proprietary software. I work
with all types of licensing. Some good, some bad from all. In my experience,
more bad from the OSS quarter. In fact, ~80% of the 'proprietary' above is due
to complete re-writes of functionality offered via OSS because in our case we
could more cheaply develop it to our own specs. than license it commercially
over and over (yet the OSS software was limited/buggy and/or the licensing too
limiting).

Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time + effort;
time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money || grow
your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software work to
sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software related
work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was my
whole point.

There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of lack of
WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that to
happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D
compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to offer the
compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the better.


PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only  
your arguments.


I'm glad you're taking part! Obviously there is always room for donated work
whether or not Walter decides to charge for the compiler. Have at it!!

Thanks,

- Dave


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Nov 17 2004
parent reply "Simon Buchan" <currently no.where> writes:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:


 In article <opshlp14iijccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...

 On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave  
 <Dave_member pathlink.com>
 wrote:

 Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial
 rewards
 dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)


 Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the  
 dynamics
 involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two  
 dynamics I've
 seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to  
 do a
 good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.


I meant it's fine to get paid to make software, but not to get paid
for your software. It's a bit hard to explain, but I'm sure you know
about Eric Raymond (http://www.catb.org/~esr/) (as in, cathedral and
the bazaar?)
He explains it a lot better than I can. As for the studies themselves,
well... that was probably a bad choice of words, I can't back that up.
<sheepish g>


 I recall one study that seems to have kind-of led to some questionable
 'conventional wisdom' on this topic - Apache vs. IIS. That study was far  
 from
 conclusive and IIS has improved loads since the study I read. Plus  
 Apache was
 forked from NCSA HTTPd (someone got paid 'to work' at developing that!)  
 and is
 more mature (time-wise) than IIS. The Apache foundation is largely  
 supported by
 people who make their money off of the related software and can  
 therefore afford
 (and benefit from) improving it. Like I said, it's probably different  
 for D
 (currently) so if I'm asked to buy a license to fund D related work  
 because it
 offers a good return on investment, I'll gladly do so.


Quite a lot of OSS (especially the big enterprise stuff) is developed
by people who are getting paid for it. I have nothing against that.
But Walter seems not to need to charge for DMD for his income, and I'm
not going to ask him to do so (or the opposite)


 My job is primarily integrating OSS, commercial and proprietary  
 software. I work
 with all types of licensing. Some good, some bad from all. In my  
 experience,
 more bad from the OSS quarter. In fact, ~80% of the 'proprietary' above  
 is due
 to complete re-writes of functionality offered via OSS because in our  
 case we
 could more cheaply develop it to our own specs. than license it  
 commercially
 over and over (yet the OSS software was limited/buggy and/or the  
 licensing too
 limiting).


Interesting... did you talk to the dev's about these issues? Is this due
to the "viral" nature of the GPL, as M$ calls it? I can't see how  
re-writing
software that already exists to a closed product can help you...

If you're going to sink effort into a project, don't you want it to be
rewarded with other people helping to dev and maintain it? You do the
work either way.


 Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time  
 + effort;
 time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money ||  
 grow
 your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software  
 work to
 sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software  
 related
 work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was  
 my
 whole point.


No-one wants to take the bread out of the mouths of developers...  
(Especially
me, I am one! Even if only recreationally :D)
Actually, all dev's need is to be paid. The money doesn't have to come from
the sale of their software. (I've heard that less than a tenth of paid  
dev's
get their check from what they write, but I can't back that up either.  
Think
device drivers, in house software, etc...)

The problem is that I don't think DMD is currently stable enough to support
itself as a commercial product, and when it is, an open AND free  
alternative
will do if not just as well, close enough that the increase in productivity
won't cancel the purchase cost.


 There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of  
 lack of
 WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that  
 to
 happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D
 compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to  
 offer the
 compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the  
 better.


Isn't most OSS done for fun or to fix the problem a dev has with it?
(scratching itches)

Finally, if you want to help Walter on the scarce resorce thang', you could
always donate :D.


 PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only
 your arguments.


 I'm glad you're taking part! Obviously there is always room for donated  
 work
 whether or not Walter decides to charge for the compiler. Have at it!!

 Thanks,

 - Dave


 --
 Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/






-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Nov 18 2004
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <opshnn1gujjccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:


 In article <opshlp14iijccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...

 On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave  
 <Dave_member pathlink.com>
 wrote:

 Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial
 rewards
 dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)


 Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the  
 dynamics
 involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two  
 dynamics I've
 seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to  
 do a
 good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.


I meant it's fine to get paid to make software, but not to get paid
for your software. It's a bit hard to explain, but I'm sure you know
about Eric Raymond (http://www.catb.org/~esr/) (as in, cathedral and
the bazaar?)
He explains it a lot better than I can. As for the studies themselves,
well... that was probably a bad choice of words, I can't back that up.
<sheepish g>


Like all studies, these are just generalizations.  But I'll admit that they are
are generalizations about an industry that is relatively new and which has no
requirements for product quality and which, for the most part, does not follow
established engineering practices.  When were these studies done?  I imagine
things have improved a bit since the end of the dot com era.


 Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time  
 + effort;
 time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money ||  
 grow
 your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software  
 work to
 sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software  
 related
 work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was  
 my
 whole point.


No-one wants to take the bread out of the mouths of developers...  
(Especially me, I am one! Even if only recreationally :D)
Actually, all dev's need is to be paid. The money doesn't have to come from
the sale of their software. (I've heard that less than a tenth of paid  
dev's get their check from what they write, but I can't back that up either.  
Think device drivers, in house software, etc...)


Device driver writers get their income from the sale of associated hardware.
And in-house developers are creating proprietary software which is usually not
distributed publicly in any form.  I think most OSS is developed by people
during their free time, and it can be tricky when the developer is bound by IP
agreements with their day job.  Personally, I would love it if I were in a
position to develop OSS full-time and have the same or better income as I have
now.


 There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of  
 lack of
 WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that  
 to
 happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D
 compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to  
 offer the
 compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the  
 better.




I'm sure if Walter perceives the need he'll charge for DMD before he lets its
quality slip.  And for the record, DMC is free and it's an excellent compiler
:-)


Sean
Nov 18 2004
prev sibling parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <opshnn1gujjccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:


 In article <opshlp14iijccy7t simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...




Interesting... did you talk to the dev's about these issues? Is this due
to the "viral" nature of the GPL, as M$ calls it? I can't see how re-writing
software that already exists to a closed product can help you...


Very simply - the proprietary code does what we need it to do better or we scrap
it. Mostly it's worked better. No doubt there are some very good OSS/free (as in
both) packages out there. There are also some excellent OS commercial products
out there. Of course some things we could never justify (or even do) a rewrite
for.


If you're going to sink effort into a project, don't you want it to be
rewarded with other people helping to dev and maintain it? You do the
work either way.


We (try) and do a decent study on the pros and cons and sometimes it comes out
that it is just a better investment of time and resources to develop proprietary
(in-house, closed source) stuff. Many of these aren't real big apps. If the
owners of the company invest in developing the software for competitive
advantage, then they often prefer not to release source code so they can keep
that competitive advantage.

We (the company) benefit from OSS - it's not a religous or political issue, just
reality for what we do.

Really, my whole screed earlier was primarily about people 'expecting' not to
pay for software. Sometimes many are "penny wise and pound foolish" and all that
because they will spend a ton of resources trying to get 'free' software to do
what they need when they could write a check to Bill and be money way ahead.


Finally, if you want to help Walter on the scarce resorce thang', you could
always donate :D.


I've spent a little time and effort providing feedback and I plan on buying the
tools when the DMD v1.0 package becomes available and will encourage the company
I work for to do the same for each developer if we use it.

"Open source" sure seems to have worked well for D up until now (and most likely
it couldn't have gotten much of a foothold w/o OS) but once again I want what's
best for the on going development of the language and can't expect it to be free
of charge forever <g>



 Nov 18 2004



prev sibling  parent  h3r3tic <foo bar.baz>  writes:


Glen Perkins wrote:

 What I *have* seen were cases where something useful from the *nix world 
 was needed for *in-house* use on Windows, and minGW or cygwin were 
 considered viable solutions. (I know I could hardly function on Windows 
 without my cygwin!) The compiler you build your commercial apps with had 
 better be a serious native product, though.


Well, I don't have that much experience with commercial application 
development (still at uni) but I've worked both with the serious native 
products (MSVC v.6, 2001,2003) and MinGW. Seriously, I have experienced 
problems with MSVC6 that were absent in MinGW, and I don't mean 
standard-inconsistency. This leads me into thinking that MinGW is a well 
established product that may be used for commercial development. The 
main factor that I see behind using MSVC is that IMO it's the best IDE 
ever created. It has really great library support and a huge base of 
'faithful' users. But as a compiler I don't see MinGW being worse than 
Microsoft compilers. In the case of MSVC6 that's still commonly used, I 
believe MinGW is a much better choice for a COMPILER, maybe its compile 
times are longer but the resulting code can be faster (I've benchmarked 
30% - 100% faster execution of some specific programs of mine).

My conclusion is that D needs a really good IDE that people would work 
with as this is the main factor for which one vendor is chosen and 
another rejected. As for the IDE, I obviously don't only mean the code 
editor, but a RAD environment.

As for writing a MinGW frontend mentioned in another post: Correct me if 
I'm wrong, but I've always thought that MinGW is 'frontend-compatible' 
with GCC so the GDC should work with MinGW's backend (maybe with some 
modifications).



 Nov 15 2004



prev sibling  parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net>  writes:


Glen Perkins wrote:

 What are the plans for the Digital Mars D compilers on Windows and 
 Linux? I see in the FAQ that the front ends are open source, and I saw 
 somewhere that the full compilers are "reference implementations" for 
 all D compilers, and I see that they are freely downloadable now, but I 
 still don't understand what this adds up to.


Are you aware of the David Friedman's GDC project?
http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/

It's based on the open-source front end.



 Clearly the D front end plus the GCC compiler will give us a free and 
 open source D compiler for *nix systems, but what about Windows? Will 
 the full DMD compiler remain free of charge for downloading, but not be 
 open source (behind the front end)? Will it still be free of charge but 
 not open source? Or will the Digital Mars compilers cease to be 
 available as free downloads as soon as Version 1.0 officially ships? And 
 on Linux, will DMD and D/GCC both be free of charge but only the latter 
 open source, or what?


It's my understanding that Walter plans on keeping DMD free. To make 
money, he plans to sell books and additional tools. But I think the 
basic DMD compiler will always remain free. But I might not be 
remembering it right, so maybe we should just wait for Walter to answer.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/



 Nov 14 2004



 next sibling parent  "Glen Perkins" <please.dont email.com>  writes:


"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message 
news:cn9bii$q6p$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Glen Perkins wrote:

 What are the plans for the Digital Mars D compilers on Windows and 
 Linux? I see in the FAQ that the front ends are open source, and I 
 saw somewhere that the full compilers are "reference 
 implementations" for all D compilers, and I see that they are 
 freely downloadable now, but I still don't understand what this 
 adds up to.


 Are you aware of the David Friedman's GDC project?
 http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/

 It's based on the open-source front end.


Yes, that's what I was referring to as covering *nix systems. Of 
course, in a sense GCC runs on Windows, too. I always have cygwin 
installed on Windows and GCC installed on any *nix, including cygwin. 
A compiler in cygwin isn't what I consider a real Windows compiler, 
though.

Of course, there may also be a fully native Windows GCC that I've 
forgotten about, since I only use GCC on *nix and use MSVC on Windows.


 Clearly the D front end plus the GCC compiler will give us a free 
 and open source D compiler for *nix systems, but what about 
 Windows? Will the full DMD compiler remain free of charge for 
 downloading, but not be open source (behind the front end)? Will it 
 still be free of charge but not open source? Or will the Digital 
 Mars compilers cease to be available as free downloads as soon as 
 Version 1.0 officially ships? And on Linux, will DMD and D/GCC both 
 be free of charge but only the latter open source, or what?


 It's my understanding that Walter plans on keeping DMD free. To make 
 money, he plans to sell books and additional tools. But I think the 
 basic DMD compiler will always remain free. But I might not be 
 remembering it right, so maybe we should just wait for Walter to 
 answer.


Good plan, but I appreciate your info.



 Nov 14 2004



prev sibling  parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com>  writes:


"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:cn9bii$q6p$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It's my understanding that Walter plans on keeping DMD free. To make
 money, he plans to sell books and additional tools. But I think the
 basic DMD compiler will always remain free. But I might not be
 remembering it right, so maybe we should just wait for Walter to answer.


That's the plan for the foreseeable future. The DMD source is also
licensable for companies that want to create their own commercial D compiler
products. Those who want to make GPL use of it can do so for free.



 Nov 15 2004



  parent  Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com>  writes:


In article <cnasel$99g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:cn9bii$q6p$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It's my understanding that Walter plans on keeping DMD free. To make
 money, he plans to sell books and additional tools. But I think the
 basic DMD compiler will always remain free. But I might not be
 remembering it right, so maybe we should just wait for Walter to answer.


That's the plan for the foreseeable future. The DMD source is also
licensable for companies that want to create their own commercial D compiler
products. Those who want to make GPL use of it can do so for free.


Will DMC pickup some of the C99 features such as bool and stdint? I have only
used DMC as a linker for D but I am interested in the combo of using D and C. 



 Nov 19 2004