www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - What's the problem of D...,D will be dead?

reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
I like the D very much, just like other developers.

but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.

Where the mail list about development of D?

D is GPLed?

If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!

WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX?
Apr 18 2006
next sibling parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:

 I like the D very much, just like other developers.
 
 but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.


From "The Zen of Python":

	Now is better than never.
	Although never is often better than *right* now.

I know how you feel: I want D 1.0, and I wants it now, but I would much
rather Walter takes his time and gets it *right*.

Which reminds me...

Walter: you have my undying gratitude for implicit template function
instantiation!  :)


 
 Where the mail list about development of D?


This would be it.


 
 D is GPLed?
 
 If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!
 
 WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX? 
 
 


I assume you mean the compiler; probably because the D front end hooks
into the DigitalMars C compiler, which is closed source, and which
Walter still sells.  Also, I highly doubt D will die just because it
isn't GPLed.  There is LOTS of software that hasn't died that weren't GPLed.

D_Community > D_License

But, if you're absolutely desperate to have a GPLed D compiler, then
grab gdc which is the D front end hooked up to the gcc back end.  Linky:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/

	-- Daniel

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/
Apr 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:


 I like the D very much, just like other developers.
 
 but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.
 
 Where the mail list about development of D?


We have these newsgroups.  What more are you expecting out of a mailing 
list?


 D is GPLed?
 
 If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!


What sense does it make to GPL a programming language?

Stewart.
Apr 18 2006
prev sibling parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:

 I like the D very much, just like other developers.
 
 but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.
 
 Where the mail list about development of D?
 
 D is GPLed?
 
 If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!
 
 WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX? 
 
 


GPL is poison to a lot of business interests, vis a vis software which 
they must release with their products.

If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?  Is 
their popularity a fluke?

-DavidM
Apr 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger darkstargames.de> writes:
David Medlock wrote:


 GPL is poison to a lot of business interests, vis a vis
 software which they must release with their products.


You realize, that using a GPLed compiler does not imply, that the
output it GPL, too. As long as you don't incorporate GPL code
into you program you are not bound to GPL.

For example the software I'm developing is ofently licenced under
a Apache, MPL or BSD like licence. But not all. Software which I
want to get money for is always licenced unter a GPL/dual
licence, which boils down to about the same licensing terms like
Trolltech's Qt Licence: Software is OpenSource, but using it in
a CSS or commercial application requires obtaining a licence; if
the software is going to be GPL, then you may use my stuff for
free. If software developed with my stuff is again published
under a dual licence (like e.g. MySQL), it's considered
commercial, but licencing fees are much lower.
 

 If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?
  Is their popularity a fluke?


Those are usually compiled with GCC, which is GPLed, yet they're
not infected by GPL.

Just my 2 cents.

-- 
Wolfgang Draxinger
Apr 18 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:


 For example the software I'm developing is ofently licenced under
 a Apache, MPL or BSD like licence. But not all. Software which I
 want to get money for is always licenced unter a GPL/dual
 licence, which boils down to about the same licensing terms like
 Trolltech's Qt Licence: Software is OpenSource, but



 using it in
 a CSS or commercial application requires obtaining a licence;


'commercial software' doesn't mean absolute no to 'GPL'ed or 'Open
source' software.


 if
 the software is going to be GPL, then you may use my stuff for
 free. If software developed with my stuff is again published
 under a dual licence (like e.g. MySQL), it's considered
 commercial, but licencing fees are much lower.


I don't think it's possible to dual license a program that is using
previously GPL'ed code without a permission from the original authors.
Actually it is, but the second license should fulfill all the terms of GPL.


 If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?
  Is their popularity a fluke?


 
 Those are usually compiled with GCC, which is GPLed, yet they're
 not infected by GPL.


Hmm, infected :-/

Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be
better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like
potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.

-- 
Jari-Matti
Apr 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Mike Capp <mike.capp gmail.com> writes:
In article <e23c5m$obf$1 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...

Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be
better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like
potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.


What about "potential hidden back door features" of open source compilers?

http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

:-)

cheers
Mike
Apr 18 2006
parent reply Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger darkstargames.de> writes:
Mike Capp wrote:


 What about "potential hidden back door features" of open source
 compilers?
 
 http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/


There's still the possibility to compile with another compiler
made by a competitor (this might be infected, too), but my guts
say me, that those kind of "backdoors" are bound by a boolean
AND operation. If the backdoor1 get's compiled into the binary
by FooCC and I compile a competing compiler BarCC and then use
BarCC again to compile FooCC any backdoor code will drop if both
vendors didn't agree to implement the very same backdoor.

Walter, does DMC handle things in the same way like GCC or uses
it a completely different approach?

-- 
Wolfgang Draxinger
Apr 18 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

 Walter, does DMC handle things in the same way like GCC or uses
 it a completely different approach?


I don't know how gcc handles things. I purposely have not looked at the 
source to it.
Apr 21 2006
parent Kevin Bealer <Kevin_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e2a3fm$uvv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

 Walter, does DMC handle things in the same way like GCC or uses
 it a completely different approach?


I don't know how gcc handles things. I purposely have not looked at the 
source to it.


That's probably very wise.  I hear that Marlon Brando looked through gcc's
register allocation code to prepare for his role in Apocalypse Now.

Kevin
Apr 26 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger darkstargames.de> writes:
Jari-Matti M=E4kel=E4 wrote:


 Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely
 be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I
 don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source
 compilers.
=20


If my own creation does not use code of any GPL software
(eventually compilers) I'm allowed to compile my commercially
sold, closed source, expensively sold compiler collection with
it and distribute in this way without violating the GPL. The GPL
states clearly, that if GPL software is just used as a tool, and
not as a "blueprint" the results are unaffected of the GPL.

--=20
Wolfgang Draxinger
Apr 18 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 

 Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely
 be better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I
 don't like potential hidden back door features of closed source
 compilers.


 
 If my own creation does not use code of any GPL software
 (eventually compilers) I'm allowed to compile my commercially
 sold, closed source, expensively sold compiler collection with
 it and distribute in this way without violating the GPL. The GPL
 states clearly, that if GPL software is just used as a tool, and
 not as a "blueprint" the results are unaffected of the GPL.
 


Exactly :) I was just saying that you might feel a bit safer when using
a compiler that is "fully documented", i.e. open source.

-- 
Jari-Matti
Apr 18 2006
prev sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

 Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be
 better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like
 potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.
 


Does any of the people who say such things do actually look at the 
entire source code of every single program before they use it?

Even more funny, is when people say that you can modify linux kernel to 
suit your needs!! Yeah Right!! Who's gonna do that?
Apr 18 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:

 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

 Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be
 better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like
 potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.


 
 Does any of the people who say such things do actually look at the
 entire source code of every single program before they use it?


Most probably not, otherwise there would not be things like
'app-get/aptitude/emerge moo' or OO.org easter eggs. :) Still I don't
believe that open source developers have very sinister thoughts. How
else can you explain the small number of linux/bsd worms and viruses?
Their market share on the server side is >25% (according to the
wikipedia page about linux), but even Amiga has more active viruses.


 
 Even more funny, is when people say that you can modify linux kernel to
 suit your needs!! Yeah Right!! Who's gonna do that?


I agree. Not every person should be required to hack or recompile their
kernels. Now that open source is becoming more and more common there are
linux users that don't know anything about their computers (70y old
grannies). But there will be small shops that sell customized solutions
to schools, corporations and "rich" private persons. I guess bigger
corporations are able to do some patching themselves.

At least some Gentoo/Arch users want combined bleeding-edge
reiser4/xen/openmosix support on their kernels and are willing to
manually patch theirs.

-- 
Jari-Matti
Apr 19 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
OpenSource make the software technology returned to developer, and we can 
make/got much more perfect software.
The big commercial company can't or hard to do this. ( such as EJB, ISOed 
C++, Windows ), because $ is more important than
software and technology.

We must know that D is a complicated system language, not a script/dynamic 
language, it's hard to make it success as soon as possible.

We need a success, not only a runnable product!

I think that, without opensouce, some hackers can't take part in this game; 
without opensouce, a little company can't make D success, and
without opensouce, D community can't be stronger

"David Medlock" <noone nowhere.com> 
??????:e22j3u$2koj$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Boris Wang wrote:

 I like the D very much, just like other developers.

 but, i feel that the core development of D is too slow.

 Where the mail list about development of D?

 D is GPLed?

 If D not GPL, IT WILL DIE!

 WHY NOT DO IT LIKE LINUX?


 GPL is poison to a lot of business interests, vis a vis software which 
 they must release with their products.

 If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?  Is their 
 popularity a fluke?

 -DavidM
Apr 19 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:


 I think that, without opensouce, some hackers can't take part in this game; 
 without opensouce, a little company can't make D success, and
 without opensouce, D community can't be stronger


GDC *is* open source (GPL license), so feel free to hack away there...

The current release (GDC 0.17) corresponds to DMD 0.140, so it needs
some updating to catch up with all the latest Digital Mars features ?


Or you could still just *use* the D language to write some code, without 
taking part in the language development ? Both aspects needs assistance.

For instance, there are plenty of D projects at dsource and sourceforge.

--anders
Apr 19 2006