digitalmars.D - DMD and GDC: Worth developing two compilers?
- Bruno Medeiros (22/22) Nov 28 2005 Here's something I've been wondering for some time now. Currently we
- Walter Bright (14/16) Nov 28 2005 One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of
- Bruno Medeiros (8/30) Nov 29 2005 Indeed.
- BCS (4/9) Nov 29 2005 What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cea...
- Georg Wrede (2/4) Nov 29 2005 Walter, please, look both ways!
- Sean Kelly (4/9) Nov 29 2005 I think Walter probably knows better than to stand in front of the
- Walter Bright (7/15) Nov 29 2005 Standing directly behind them is pretty ****ing dangerous. I once saw a ...
- Bruno Medeiros (14/32) Nov 30 2005 Wouldn't it? Don't forget that GDC isn't really a whole separate
- Sean Kelly (5/9) Nov 30 2005 DMD is a DigitalMars product, free or no. That it carries a blanket
- Georg Wrede (9/27) Nov 29 2005 Judging from the attitudes of some people I've evangelized D to, there
- Sean Kelly (10/20) Nov 29 2005 In my experience, software development companies tend to prefer
Here's something I've been wondering for some time now. Currently we have two compilers in development, DMD and GDC, and altough GDC's development is mostly porting back changes from newer DMD versions, wouldn't it be better, given how precious the time resource is, to have have just one line of development? That line being GDC, since it can't go away: it has some caracteristics that are essential for adoption of a new technology like D (it's source is fully GPL'ed, and it's more portable/available). It also has some other advantages like better (or "betterly" available) tool support and integraton with gcc (the C compiler, not the compiler colection). I'm on Windows and nevertheless I'm considering start using GDC for just these later reasons. And so, wouldn't it be better for Walter to shift his development to GDC? * Is the backporting overhead not that significant ? (I doubt it, even these small things make a big difference) * Or is there any technical issue in doing so? * Or any non technical issue (like commercial interests)? I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before). -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."
Nov 28 2005
"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dmes6a$237q$1 digitaldaemon.com...I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before).One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers worry about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never looked at the source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers happy. If I go so far as to actually do development work on gcc, and also develop (closed source) DMC++, that puts me in a position that's vulnerable to accusations of copying. We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating his time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him for this necessary and valuable contribution. Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.
Nov 28 2005
Walter Bright wrote:"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dmes6a$237q$1 digitaldaemon.com...It's unfortunate, but I guess it makes perfect sense.I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before).One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers worry about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never looked at the source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers happy. If I go so far as to actually do development work on gcc, and also develop (closed source) DMC++, that puts me in a position that's vulnerable to accusations of copying.We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating his time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him for this necessary and valuable contribution.Indeed.Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so? -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."
Nov 29 2005
In article <dmidp9$2540$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...Walter Bright wrote:..What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so?
Nov 29 2005
BCS wrote:What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.Walter, please, look both ways!
Nov 29 2005
Georg Wrede wrote:BCS wrote:I think Walter probably knows better than to stand in front of the dragsters ;-) SeanWhat if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.Walter, please, look both ways!
Nov 29 2005
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> "Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message news:dmiquq$2fo1$1 digitaldaemon.com...Georg Wrede wrote:Standing directly behind them is pretty ****ing dangerous. I once saw a top fuel dragster light up in reverse when the christmas tree hit green. He launched about 60 feet backwards before he was able to cut the engine, and it flew another 30 feet back. Since a lot of people hang around in back, it's a miracle nobody was hit.BCS wrote:I think Walter probably knows better than to stand in front of the dragsters ;-)What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.Walter, please, look both ways!
Nov 29 2005
BCS wrote:In article <dmidp9$2540$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...Wouldn't it? Don't forget that GDC isn't really a whole separate compiler, it's just a gcc port of dmd. In any case, that point is only valid when you state that the number of developers is what makes a project more/less risky. If you have twice the number of aplications (like 2 compilers instead of one) but number of developers is still the same, it's not really less risky in that way. I would say that what Sean Kelly said on the other post is what makes sense for my question, altough DMD is also completely free (as in beer). (does it still count as corporate backing?) -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."Walter Bright wrote:...What if (God forbid) Walter got hit by a car? DMD would more or less cease to exist. With GDC out there this wouldn't kill D.Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.Hum..? I'm not so clear on this one. Why is it so?
Nov 30 2005
Bruno Medeiros wrote:I would say that what Sean Kelly said on the other post is what makes sense for my question, altough DMD is also completely free (as in beer). (does it still count as corporate backing?)DMD is a DigitalMars product, free or no. That it carries a blanket disclaimer exempting Walter from liability shouldn't bother legal too much--it's more about having a single 'official' point of contact. Sean
Nov 30 2005
Walter Bright wrote:"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:dmes6a$237q$1 digitaldaemon.com...Judging from the attitudes of some people I've evangelized D to, there is no way for us to not appreciate that single point enough.I'd like to hear Walter's opinion on this, (or some relevant previous discussion if this has been brough up before).One important consideration for me is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I am in the compiler business, and one thing lawyers worry about is 'tainting'. Being able to truthfully say "I've never looked at the source to gcc" is an easy way to make the lawyers happy. If I go so far as to actually do development work on gcc, and also develop (closed source) DMC++, that puts me in a position that's vulnerable to accusations of copying.We in the D community are very lucky that David Friedman is donating his time and effort to developing GDC. I for one am grateful to him for this necessary and valuable contribution.Yes, it's just amazing how good and valuable David's contribution is -- (Hmm, should I say "us", "the community", "programmers", "D"?) to all.Having two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.Some of the communities I've talked with, have had it as a show-stopper point if there isn't at least 2 separate sources for a compiler for a new language. ! And at least one of them being _totally_ Open Source.
Nov 29 2005
Georg Wrede wrote:Walter Bright wrote:In my experience, software development companies tend to prefer corporate backing for software products because it makes obtaining support, tracking product updates, and legal buck-passing much simpler to achieve. I have a decent bit of leeway on Solaris where we manage all portions of the build process (and where open-source code is much more common), but asking the Windows build team to install an open source compiler would give them apoplexy. Simply put, I'm very glad for the existence of both compilers. :-) SeanHaving two different compilers for D also makes D more substantial and less risky for organizations to bet their next project on.Some of the communities I've talked with, have had it as a show-stopper point if there isn't at least 2 separate sources for a compiler for a new language. ! And at least one of them being _totally_ Open Source.
Nov 29 2005