www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Open Source D

reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
features.
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:


 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? 


The language specification is neither complete or standardized.


It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, 


One person to define the language is not so bad, but having the same one
then work on a compiler etc is way too much of a workload, in my opinion.


seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.


If a bug is defined as "not conforming to specification" then we are in
trouble as the specs are still fluid. 

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
9/09/2005 9:27:39 AM
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:

 On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:
 
 

What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? 


 
 
 The language specification is neither complete or standardized.
 


So we are waiting for Walter to make the spec final?


 

It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
bringing D into the mainstream, 


 
 
 One person to define the language is not so bad, but having the same one
 then work on a compiler etc is way too much of a workload, in my opinion.


I agree, I was mainly talking about the compiler implementation.


 

seeing as there is a healthy community 
of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
features.


 
 
 If a bug is defined as "not conforming to specification" then we are in
 trouble as the specs are still fluid. 
 


That is a valid point, but there are many bugs that are valid code in 
the spec, but still are broken.
Sep 08 2005
prev sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:

[...]

 The language specification is neither complete or standardized.


Hmmm. Thats an interesting statement.

If the specs of a computer language can be considered incomplete 
and not standardized, what defines a computer language?

There must be another entity from which the specs can be considered 
as incomplete. But there are at most three entities which can serve 
such a purpose:
1. Digital Mars as the presumable holder of the rights on the 
specifications,
2. Walter Bright as the presumable CEO of Digital Mars and the 
author of specs and reference implementation dmd
3. the reference implementation dmd, consisting of an open source 
front end and a proprietary back end.

In an defining sense entities 1 and 2 never gave anything else than 
specs and reference implementation to the public.

Therefore only the sources of the reference implementation can 
serve as an entity on which the specs can be considered incomplete. 
But then also the "bugs" currently contained in the reference 
implementation are part of the language, except one says that 
according to "bugs" the specs take the lead or---common sense.

Because nobody can have rights on common sense, there are currently 
no other intellectual pieces from which a copyright can be 
determined than the specs and the reference implementation.

But the frond end of the reference implementation is Open Source 
and gdc shows, that in the back end there are no hidden 
intellectual pieces to define D.

Therefore if the language specification can be considered as 
incomplete, the only entity from which this can be concluded is the 
reference implementation, which is Open Soruce and therefore the 
complete language including the specs must have the same OpenSource 
license.

But this contradicts the opinion of Walter who claims a plain old 
copyright on the specification of D.

Therefore the specs cannot be considered as incomplete. The current 
specs and only the current specs define the language D.

Therefore there cannot be any Open Source D except granted by the 
current license or explicitely by the holder of the rights.

Whithout this grants the only way to establish an Open Source ++D-- 
is to spin off from the current specs and develop silently until 
the intellectual rights on the current specs compared to the 
intellectual rights on the further development are getting 
marginal.

The latter way does not seem to be very promising :-)

-manfred
Sep 08 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:29:19 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:


 Derek Parnell wrote:
 
 [...]

 The language specification is neither complete or standardized.


 
 Hmmm. Thats an interesting statement.
 
 If the specs of a computer language can be considered incomplete 
 and not standardized, what defines a computer language?


The statements of it's author.


 There must be another entity from which the specs can be considered 
 as incomplete.
 But there are at most three entities which can serve 
 such a purpose:


That turns out not to be the case in every situation. In this specific
case, the D specifications themselves declare that there are still pieces
to be completed.



 1. Digital Mars as the presumable holder of the rights on the 
 specifications,


Please note that I make a distinction between the specification itself and
the document that contains the specification.


 2. Walter Bright as the presumable CEO of Digital Mars and the 
 author of specs and reference implementation dmd


Yes. Currently this is the definitive arbiter of D.


 3. the reference implementation dmd, consisting of an open source 
 front end and a proprietary back end.


Not so, in my opinion. Any attempt at an implementation has the possibility
of containing behaviour that is not the behaviour intended by the
specification author. Furthermore, the documented specification can itself
carry mistakes; that is it could say things that were not intended by the
creator of the language.


 In an defining sense entities 1 and 2 never gave anything else than 
 specs and reference implementation to the public.


However, is not wise to assume that the entire specification has been
presented to the public until the language creator says it has.


 Therefore only the sources of the reference implementation can 
 serve as an entity on which the specs can be considered incomplete. 


Utter rubbish! The reference implementation in this case, DMD, has many
mistakes in it. That is, it does not yet conform to the language
specification. DMD has things in it that it should not have (according to
the specifications so far), and it omits some things that it should not
omit (according to the specifications so far). It is still a
work-in-progress, just as the 'official' language specification is.


 But then also the "bugs" currently contained in the reference 
 implementation are part of the language, except one says that 
 according to "bugs" the specs take the lead or---common sense.
 
 Because nobody can have rights on common sense, there are currently 
 no other intellectual pieces from which a copyright can be 
 determined than the specs and the reference implementation.
 
 But the frond end of the reference implementation is Open Source 
 and gdc shows, that in the back end there are no hidden 
 intellectual pieces to define D.
 
 Therefore if the language specification can be considered as 
 incomplete, the only entity from which this can be concluded is the 
 reference implementation, which is Open Soruce and therefore the 
 complete language including the specs must have the same OpenSource 
 license.
 
 But this contradicts the opinion of Walter who claims a plain old 
 copyright on the specification of D.
 
 Therefore the specs cannot be considered as incomplete. The current 
 specs and only the current specs define the language D.
 
 Therefore there cannot be any Open Source D except granted by the 
 current license or explicitely by the holder of the rights.
 
 Whithout this grants the only way to establish an Open Source ++D-- 
 is to spin off from the current specs and develop silently until 
 the intellectual rights on the current specs compared to the 
 intellectual rights on the further development are getting 
 marginal.


I think you are wrong in so many ways. Your logic is based on assumptions
that I don't believe are true.

Just ask your self this ...

Does the currently published language specification accurately reflect the
entire definition of the D language according to Walter Bright?

I believe the answer to this is - no.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
9/09/2005 2:00:08 PM
Sep 08 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dfqh87$kia$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?


time and expertise


 It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient 
 way of bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy 
 community of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and 
 adding features.


The compiler doesn't worry me. It's the rest of the stuff that I wonder 
about.
Sep 08 2005
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
of the C++ compiler.

A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
where I can effectively use it"?
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
 of the C++ compiler.
 
 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?
 
 


I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a 
large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure 
would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd 
compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak invalid_utu.fi> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out 
 another drop
 of the C++ compiler.

 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?


 
 I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a 
 large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure 
 would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd 
 compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.


I think Walter should state more explicitly the project guidelines or 
give more responsibility to the community. Ok, we know Walter maintains 
the DMD "reference" compiler and the D specs with the help and 
suggestions of the community. One big problem is the Phobos library.

IMO we need to know, if Walter is going to dump Phobos in the near 
future. We desperately need a standard library that is well designed. 
Phobos is like a patchwork quilt now - there are no (multilevel) 
sub-categories like in the Java API, some of the code won't compile and 
there are inconsistencies in the manual. Since a lot of code in Phobos 
is in PD, why not make the Phobos totally free. Currently Walter cannot 
keep pace with all the bugs we file here. Would it be too much to ask 
Walter to change his tactics in order to speed up the development?
Sep 09 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfrsok$1p33$1 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...

IMO we need to know, if Walter is going to dump Phobos in the near 
future. We desperately need a standard library that is well designed.


If Phobos ends up as the standard library for 1.0, will you use it despite the
fact that you don't like it?  Personally, I don't intend to, though I may have
to reconsider if I ever decide to write an open source application for D.  At
the moment, I use Ares exclusively, even in its sparse state.  But then I don't
have time for much outside of Ares anyway :)


Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Walter Bright wrote:

 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
 of the C++ compiler.
 
 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?
 
 


I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a 
large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure 
would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. 


*raises hand*

You said it.  I'm working flat-out on shoring up what I feel are massive gaps in
D's overall capabilities.  But there's so much more to be done than just runtime
linking, or enabling D for the web.


 If the dmd 
compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.


I agree with this.  If we look outside what additional stuff we want D to have,
then the following are things that need to be completed within the existing
(de-facto) specification.

- The D ABI (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/abi.html) is incomplete, which is a
huge obstacle for implementing a runtime code-emit interface or even a whole
compiler.  Anyone who has ever hacked on D binaries should seriously give this
document a once-over.  Addendums and extensions should be placed on the Wiki
somewhere.

- Rooting out bugs.  Presently, a good number of the bugs on the bugs newsgroup
are likely to be faults in the frontend code.  If the community took more time
to find out *where* in DMD things fail (and even attempt to patch it), Walter
would have a faster turnaround for fixing things; this would push us to V1.0
faster.

- Wiki.  IMO, the Wiki is underutilized.  The community could use things like an
almanac (listing of common and uncommon D idioms), and more in-depth proposals
for any and all suggested improvements to D (the newsgroup works for
collaboration, but is a lousy archive for docs).  Walter should be looking
through the wiki comments to append to the existing documentation, but at the
very least, he has linked the offical docs to the comments sections.

I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of anything else right now.  For
example, I would love to see a self-hosted D compiler.  But until we get the
basics out of the way, we're quite a way off from that goal.

- EricAnderton at yahoo
Sep 09 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfs3vh$1vnu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, pragma says...

- Rooting out bugs.  Presently, a good number of the bugs on the bugs newsgroup
are likely to be faults in the frontend code.  If the community took more time
to find out *where* in DMD things fail (and even attempt to patch it), Walter
would have a faster turnaround for fixing things; this would push us to V1.0
faster.


I've often considered this.  I don't suppose the DMD source would compile and
run as shipped?


Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a 
large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure 
would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd 
compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.


The compiler is one area where I think too many hands could ruin the soup.
Small compiler development teams are not uncommon in any case.  EDG has a very
small group of developers and they develop the reference implementation of C++.
Beyond that, just go ahead and do whatever you think should be done.  Submitting
Phobos changes can feel like a bit of a crapshoot but most make it in
eventually.  And there's always Ares ;-)


Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to




any

 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and




specifications,

 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another




drop

 of the C++ compiler.

 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?


 I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a
 large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure
 would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd
 compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.


Many of you *are* helping out!
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:dfrat8$182t$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another 
 drop
 of the C++ compiler.


I'm not sure how that relates to my post, but I agree with you.


 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?


Or perhaps "are the compiler/language/docs/library/community/tools in a 
state where I can be effective"? The expectations that programmers have of a 
"new language" nowadays include many things that have nothing to do with the 
compiler or language per se.
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:
Isn't gdc a open source implementation of a D compiler ??

What I see missing is at testbed compiler where 
every new idea is implemented and tested.

It should obvious be based on a open framework like gcc 
or LLVM
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/


On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:


 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?


I would like to answer with a question. What was the obstacles before 
Walter to someone else to invent D? Where were the open-source guys?

It seems to

 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.


The short anwser:

"a healthy community of programmers" can't do what a "one man army" can.

The long answer:

Have you read the forum? Haven't you noticed that everyone here want 
different things from D. How this could possibly lead to a good 
language? If Walter respects all this whims D would become a 
half-scripting-slower-than-java-python-like-syntax-crap! I believe many 
people are missing the point. Of course everyone can write compile. For 
one it will be easier for other it will be harder. Hell! Even I can do 
it. But this is really not the point (in my opinion, of course). Just to 
have a new so-called language. To have a piece of art like D it takes 
someone wiser. Whit a lot of experience (not only in programming?). It's 
like.. you know. When you are kid. Your parents tell you something and 
you think to yourself "They are wrong! I'm right!".. Then you become 
(most of us) a little more mature and you see things from a different 
perspective. Then you think "What a fool I was...". In my modest opinion 
in this community most of us (I include myself too) are the kids. Walter 
is the adult (and few other guys too). Yes, it is hard for most people 
to accept they are wrong... But I think sometimes it is wiser to sit 
back and wait. Just accept that Walter is right. In most cases time will 
prove it... D couldn't be what it is without him. I believe that making 
D open source will ruin it. Of course many people have good suggestions. 
Even things that Walter missed. And many times Walter accepts these 
suggestions. I think we have to respect his work the way it is. If 
someone don't like it - well go and make E. What is the problem with 
that? If one man can do it then the healthy guys can do it twice as fast 
and maybe even better... Also what's the problem with GDC?
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
 "a healthy community of programmers" can't do what a "one man army" can.



 
 If one man can do it then the healthy guys can do it twice as fast
 and maybe even better...


I understand that Walter is a very experienced, knowledgeable, 
intelligent individual and that he has the best in mind for the D 
language. I also understand that some members of the community are 
lacking in some of these qualities or have them to a lesser degree. I 
respect Walter for what he has done so far, its amazing really!

All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a 
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his 
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were 
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been 
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his 
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were 
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been 
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


Maybe... I don't know...


 
 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.


I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The 
programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with 
languages like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming 
drag-and-drop and I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense. D is 
actualy reamaning a programming language instead of slow scripting 
lamers friendly drag and drop gui designer. And after few years when all 
newborn programmers become a .net or java programmers we, the D 
programmers, will rule the world because we will be one of the not many 
left that can do a fast software and low level software like drivers, 
oses and stuff ;) (I am joking but in same time serious)
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfs9jb$257v$1 digitaldaemon.com>, bobef says...

 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.


I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The 
programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with 
languages like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming 
drag-and-drop and I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense.


It was the same thing during the dotcom boom.  But the popular trend has little
to do with what's actually being done in a lot of programming houses.  And there
are many applications that need to employ services that these environments don't
provide.  Though I grant that both Java and .NET are improving rapidly in some
realms that C++ has been a bit stagnant (concurrency, for example).  Personally,
I  think that D is in a somewhat unique position, as it has constructs suiting
both a systems language like C and from a higher-level language like Java.  For
me, the synergy is ideal.


Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Ameer Armaly" <ameer_armaly hotmail.com> writes:
"bobef" <bobef lessequal.com> wrote in message 
news:dfs9jb$257v$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Kyle Furlong wrote:

 How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his approval, 
 knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were allowed to 
 help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been coming for 6 
 years, and has never arrived.


 Maybe... I don't know...


 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep 
 up.


 I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The 
 programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with languages 
 like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming drag-and-drop and 
 I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense. D is actualy reamaning a 
 programming language instead of slow scripting lamers friendly drag and 
 drop gui designer. And after few years when all newborn programmers become 
 a .net or java programmers we, the D programmers, will rule the world 
 because we will be one of the not many left that can do a fast software 
 and low level software like drivers, oses and stuff ;) (I am joking but in 
 same time serious)


I agree-we're remaking the standard here;to use an example, the accepted 
standard in the unix world from what I've seen is to write *everything* in 
C, which is nice in some ways, but horribly inconsistent, tricky, and 
lacking in things like good strings.  C++ made things slightly easier, but 
gave us some real bloated results that weren't all that worth it.  Now comes 
D, withamong other things  its great syntax, its great arrays, garbage 
collection, and a wonderful library with all sorts of functions.  I'm 
willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
I'm 
 willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
 that I program in one of the best languages out there right now. 
 


Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can 
do *everything* they can do with java or .net (and even better and 
faster) but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!
Sep 09 2005
parent reply AJG <AJG_member pathlink.com> writes:
Hi,


I'm willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.  


Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can 
do *everything* they can do with java or .net 


Um... I love D and I don't want to knock it, but this statement is patently
false. If your implication is that phobos is equivalent to the .NET framework,
then you seriously need to reconsider.

Here's a quick example: Encryption. Other than hashing, there's nothing even
remotely as complete as .NET's. Symmetric, PKI, certificates, etc.


(and even better and faster) 


If you can't even do it in the first place, I doubt you can do it better and
faster.


but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!




--------------------

The overall point is: .NET is not BS. It's here today, and it's here to stay. It
may be a little clunky here and there, but that's only going to get better. 

Instead of trying to ignore it as if it were just a fad, it would be better to
emulate its strong points. The framework library is one such point. The
documentation is another such point.

Walter, by himself, cannot achieve this. There is simply not enough time. MS
must have who knows how many thousands of code monkeys on payroll writing all
this stuff. And for a reason. 

For every day that Walter dedicates to fixing a web page, or writing a doc page,
or some other random task, that's one day of D/compiler improvement lost. Think
about it. It's a simple matter of time.

Therefore, IMHO, it would be best to delegate some of these tasks to other
competent people. I'm sure plenty of qualified members in the community could
step up to the job.

In that vein, do we really need a few mediocre, sparse, undocumented standard
libraries? No. We need _one_ really good one. If you put all these people to
work together, this goal would be accomplished.

Here are some of the things that can be effectively separated into discrete
units:

D Specification.
Compiler front-end.
Compiler back-end.
Compiler-bugs.
Website.
Documentation.
Phobos.
Phobos-bugs.

If Walter can focus on only a fraction of those, then things could really pick
up. Well, just my 2 cents. 

Cheers,
--AJG.
Sep 09 2005
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
AJG wrote:

 Hi,
 
 

I'm willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.  


Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can 
do *everything* they can do with java or .net 


 
 
 Um... I love D and I don't want to knock it, but this statement is patently
 false. If your implication is that phobos is equivalent to the .NET framework,
 then you seriously need to reconsider.
 
 Here's a quick example: Encryption. Other than hashing, there's nothing even
 remotely as complete as .NET's. Symmetric, PKI, certificates, etc.
 
 

(and even better and faster) 


 
 
 If you can't even do it in the first place, I doubt you can do it better and
 faster.
 
 

but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!


 
 

 
 --------------------
 
 The overall point is: .NET is not BS. It's here today, and it's here to stay.
It
 may be a little clunky here and there, but that's only going to get better. 
 
 Instead of trying to ignore it as if it were just a fad, it would be better to
 emulate its strong points. The framework library is one such point. The
 documentation is another such point.
 
 Walter, by himself, cannot achieve this. There is simply not enough time. MS
 must have who knows how many thousands of code monkeys on payroll writing all
 this stuff. And for a reason. 
 
 For every day that Walter dedicates to fixing a web page, or writing a doc
page,
 or some other random task, that's one day of D/compiler improvement lost. Think
 about it. It's a simple matter of time.
 
 Therefore, IMHO, it would be best to delegate some of these tasks to other
 competent people. I'm sure plenty of qualified members in the community could
 step up to the job.
 
 In that vein, do we really need a few mediocre, sparse, undocumented standard
 libraries? No. We need _one_ really good one. If you put all these people to
 work together, this goal would be accomplished.
 
 Here are some of the things that can be effectively separated into discrete
 units:
 
 D Specification.
 Compiler front-end.
 Compiler back-end.
 Compiler-bugs.
 Website.
 Documentation.
 Phobos.
 Phobos-bugs.
 
 If Walter can focus on only a fraction of those, then things could really pick
 up. Well, just my 2 cents. 
 
 Cheers,
 --AJG



Exactly
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
 man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D
now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


 
 
 D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D
 now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.
 
 
 


Some people are waiting for "A 1.0 release of DMD and the D spec, so we 
can have a long-term stable development platform. "
Sep 10 2005
parent Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
clayasaurus wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
 man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.




 D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 
 1.0. D
 now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.


 
 Some people are waiting for "A 1.0 release of DMD and the D spec, so we 
 can have a long-term stable development platform. "


Hey...  that's my line!  :)

-- Chris Sauls
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


 
 
 D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D
 now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.
 
 
 


Ant wrote:

 The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
 I'm always designing around DMD bugs.


Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.
Sep 11 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...


All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


 D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. 
 D
 now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.


 Ant wrote:

 The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
 I'm always designing around DMD bugs.


 Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.


Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have 
caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't 
hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private 
(eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the 
template not the module).
Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs 
by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't 
already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter 
might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful 
to post.
Sep 10 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Walter Bright wrote:


"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...



All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. 
D
now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.


Ant wrote:


The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.


Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.


 
 
 Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have 
 caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't 
 hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private 
 (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the 
 template not the module).
 Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs 
 by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't 
 already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter 
 might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful 
 to post. 
 
 


I'm not speaking as one of the frequent users of D, I am an observer of 
the newsgroup and I hoped to incite discussion about some of the things 
that I have noticed.

I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by 
storm, so why hasnt it?
Sep 11 2005
parent reply Rain Dog <Rain_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dg068a$1m7h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Walter Bright wrote:


"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...



All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. 
D
now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.


Ant wrote:


The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.


Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.


 
 
 Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have 
 caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't 
 hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private 
 (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the 
 template not the module).
 Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs 
 by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't 
 already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter 
 might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful 
 to post. 
 
 


I'm not speaking as one of the frequent users of D, I am an observer of 
the newsgroup and I hoped to incite discussion about some of the things 
that I have noticed.

I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by 
storm, so why hasnt it?



I agree with you here Kyle. It seems like D is the perfect language, what is
holding it back?
Sep 12 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dg4ucj$2htk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Rain Dog says...

In article <dg068a$1m7h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by 
storm, so why hasnt it?


I agree with you here Kyle. It seems like D is the perfect language, what is
holding it back?


D doesn't fill a popular niche that's current empty, and it's also pre-1.0.
That said, I think D has an attractive feature set for certain kinds of
programming, but it's also stuff that will not be too terribly common for A
While Yet (lock-free multiprogramming being one example).


Sean
Sep 12 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dg01dd$1io1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have
 caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't
 hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private
 (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the
 template not the module).
 Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs
 by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that


aren't

 already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter
 might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful
 to post.


It does help when one posts a bug to comment on whether it is a showstopper
for their project or not.
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Walter Bright wrote:


"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...



All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.


D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. 
D
now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.


Ant wrote:


The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.


Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.


 
 
 Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have 
 caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't 
 hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private 
 (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the 
 template not the module).
 Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs 
 by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't 
 already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter 
 might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful 
 to post. 
 
 


One example: templates in an object file that are later stored added to 
a library (on windows)... nasty errors unless you do a workaround 
(thanks to Walter for revealing that workaround; otherwise, everybody 
would be clueless ).  It will get people every time unless the problem 
is obviously documented which I don't think it is currently.  The 
workaround is effective but unattractive and meaningless to code readers 
unless documented.

While I know that this is a problem in the OMF format that's not going 
away anytime soon (linux elf is unaffected), it's things like this that 
are annoying.  I think Ant could list several "workrounds" that are 
necessary.  These problems aren't necessarily consistant across 
platforms either.

Another is non-obvious uses of extern( ) with function pointers and 
delegates.  Can't use the extern keyword inside function scope (so all 
internal functions are only D type).  You can create an anonymous 
function but can't declare it's calling convention which makes what I 
consider one of its primary advantages in windows/c callbacks untenable.

Just a couple things off the top of my head.

-JJR
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?



There _is_ an open source D compiler. Go check out GDC 
http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.



 It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.



I am affraid you are overestimating us, or underestimating the art of 
compiler construction / language design.

D is as much a one man show as it is because, given the above open 
source D compiler, so few people have the capacity or ability to fix 
bugs or add features.

IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask 
himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?

And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
ahead :-)


Bastiaan.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
 IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask 
 himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?


The key question is who defines "improve"?


 And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
 ahead :-)


The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire modules. 
Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the library is 
scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized development of phobos 
has lead to an unorganized phobos.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask 
himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?


 
 
 The key question is who defines "improve"?



That's easy: the one doing the improvement, and the ones using a patched 
compiler :-)



And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
ahead :-)


 
 
 The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire modules. 
 Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the library is 
 scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized development of phobos 
 has lead to an unorganized phobos. 



The original post was about the compiler, not the library -- although I 
admit that the latter plays an important role in the applicability of 
the language. Agreed that patches to the frontend are even sparser, but 
there are no real obstacles that I can see to developing a D compiler or 
library the open-source way... Still, organising development and 
obtaining structure is non-trivial, but there are open source projects 
that are equally challenging and do succeed in this.

If submitted patches are slow to appear in official DMD releases, maybe 
we should have a repository of patches on some wiki or so, so that 
people can apply them themselves? If you look at the Linux kernel for 
example, many patches get used long before they get accepted into the 
mainline kernel. We could have an equivalent to for example 
http://lwn.net/Articles/149221/ at the bottom of the page.

Also in analogy to Linux kernel development, someone could maintain an 
alternative GDC tree with selected patches applied, to make it easier to 
test them and encourage acceptance into the mainline.


:-)
Bastiaan.
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 Ben Hinkle wrote:
 

 IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should 
 ask himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?




 The key question is who defines "improve"?


 
 
 
 That's easy: the one doing the improvement, and the ones using a patched 
 compiler :-)
 
 

 And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
 ahead :-)




 The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire 
 modules. Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the 
 library is scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized 
 development of phobos has lead to an unorganized phobos. 


 
 
 
 The original post was about the compiler, not the library -- although I 
 admit that the latter plays an important role in the applicability of 
 the language. Agreed that patches to the frontend are even sparser, but 
 there are no real obstacles that I can see to developing a D compiler or 
 library the open-source way... Still, organising development and 
 obtaining structure is non-trivial, but there are open source projects 
 that are equally challenging and do succeed in this.
 
 If submitted patches are slow to appear in official DMD releases, maybe 
 we should have a repository of patches on some wiki or so, so that 
 people can apply them themselves? If you look at the Linux kernel for 
 example, many patches get used long before they get accepted into the 
 mainline kernel. We could have an equivalent to for example 
 http://lwn.net/Articles/149221/ at the bottom of the page.
 
 Also in analogy to Linux kernel development, someone could maintain an 
 alternative GDC tree with selected patches applied, to make it easier to 
 test them and encourage acceptance into the mainline.
 
 
 :-)
 Bastiaan.


Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?
Sep 11 2005
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?


What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at 
http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.

Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it 
makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a 
subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, 
it is his baby.

Bastiaan.
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 

 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?


 
 
 What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at 
 http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.
 
 Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it 
 makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a 
 subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, 
 it is his baby.
 
 Bastiaan.


Yes I meant version controled repository. Any serious collaborative 
programming project needs one.
Sep 11 2005
parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 

 Kyle Furlong wrote:


 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?




 What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at 
 http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.

 Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it 
 makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a 
 subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, 
 it is his baby.

 Bastiaan.


 
 
 Yes I meant version controled repository. Any serious collaborative 
 programming project needs one.


What it needs more is collaborators... My guess is that David does not 
see the need for a version controlled public repository without 
collaborators. And you are overstating the importance of such a 
repository. It does not take a repository to post a patch if you have 
one -- the Linux kernel has been developed without a repository for many 
years, only a news group... And a news group we have.

Bastiaan.
Sep 11 2005
prev sibling parent reply J Thomas <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go 
for it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
_organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the 
idea. also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is 
another reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....



Kyle Furlong wrote:

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.
Sep 11 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go for 
 it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
 work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

 Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
 a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
 and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

 What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
 _organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
 the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
 class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
 disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
 also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
 reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....


You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares 
project in particular, which aims to replace phobos. Personally I believe 
phobos is fixable and a new external standard library isn't needed. I don't 
want Walter to spend time fixing phobos, though (or the doc). Since Walter 
is the code maintainer I don't feel comfortable discussing, designing, 
coding and sending him "serious" patches only to get an email at the end 
with "sorry I don't want to do that" or something - which is how the process 
works today. For example there were lots of ideas in 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/20858.html and 
subsequent threads about phobos changes that never got "the green light" so 
they never even really went to the design/discussion phase. So I've only 
been sending small changes to individual modules that clean up small 
issues - but the big issues still remain.
Sep 11 2005
next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
 news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 

If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go for 
it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
_organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....


 
 
 You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares 
 project in particular, which aims to replace phobos. Personally I believe 
 phobos is fixable and a new external standard library isn't needed.
 <snip>


Personally, I think dsource is seriously disorganize.
Most projects are being worked on by people who "have lives too"; 
development can be pretty slow.
Another thing is, there are several "library" projects .. these need to 
be orgenized into a standard library or "API" so to speak.
I'd love to see a huge and collective library like the Java API and/or 
the .NET framework.
I personally am not much familiar with .NET, but I am familiar with 
Java, and the Java API is one of the (if not the only) powerful features 
about java that pushes me to use the language. I regret to say this, but 
I use java alot more than I use D, and the only reason is the extensive API.

I think What we need is very few people (possibly one person?) with 
leadership qualities who have/has a vision and can organize and lead an 
open library/API project in which the whole community can participate in 
and/or contribute to.
Sep 11 2005
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dg17cq$2e66$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...

"J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
 _organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
 the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
 class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
 disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
 also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
 reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....


You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares 
project in particular, which aims to replace phobos.


For what it's worth, I think one aspect of the Ares project could be useful
whether it succeeds or not.  That is, since Ares does aim to be a full-featured
standard library, it needs to be well documented and it has to run on DMD/GDC
pretty much seamlessly.  Thus, one of the first goals was to clean up, separate,
and formalize/document the interface between the standard library, the garbage
collector, and the compiler runtime (which are currently somewhat interdependent
in Phobos)--which basically means that I've been cleaning up and formalizing the
interactions between different portions of Phobos.  If you really wanted to, you
could take Phobos.std, drop it on the Ares core, and it would pretty much Just
Work.

Sean
Sep 11 2005