digitalmars.D - D sandbox?
currently DParser passes some dstress test cases. I'm in the mood of glueing it with DMD backend. With current C++ interface improvements in D, I think DParser is possible to glue with DMD backend. I hope Walter can provide an interface , and a backend library. Though it's a great bunches of work :D It's still possible to glue with LLVM and take advantage from the work done by lindquist. But a general backend interface not only glueing with one backend is better for me in some sense. 1. This benefits several scripting langs. Those lang can take advantage from DMD backend to generate native code. 2. The work on DParser can therefore attract more people to help. And thus more bug fixes can be done. DMD C++ frontend might get some patches from those bug fixes. 3. DParser itself can create branches as sandboxes to give the community some experiments and coding in D is relatively easier than C++ in the original DMD frontend for the community. So community can really make some experiments on certain branches, and as sandboxes. And Walter can view this sandbox and maybe lucky enough to pick one good feature integrated in DMD. 4. This gives us a bit elegance. D compiles D. This is *not* an urgent request. Cause DParser compare to DMD frontend is still not relatively stable. I'm trying to fix those bugs. Thanks to dstress. I can get a good many test cases in it. Currently I guess about 1/3 test cases pass. I'd love to listen how CONs think and how PROs think. DavidL
Oct 16 2007
Reply to davidl,currently DParser passes some dstress test cases. I'm in the mood of glueing it with DMD backend. With current C++ interface improvements in D, I think DParser is possible to glue with DMD backend. I hope Walter can provide an interface , and a backend library. Though it's a great bunches of work :D It's still possible to glue with LLVM and take advantage from the work done by lindquist. But a general backend interface not only glueing with one backend is better for me in some sense. 1. This benefits several scripting langs. Those lang can take advantage from DMD backend to generate native code. 2. The work on DParser can therefore attract more people to help. And thus more bug fixes can be done. DMD C++ frontend might get some patches from those bug fixes. 3. DParser itself can create branches as sandboxes to give the community some experiments and coding in D is relatively easier than C++ in the original DMD frontend for the community. So community can really make some experiments on certain branches, and as sandboxes. And Walter can view this sandbox and maybe lucky enough to pick one good feature integrated in DMD. 4. This gives us a bit elegance. D compiles D. This is *not* an urgent request. Cause DParser compare to DMD frontend is still not relatively stable. I'm trying to fix those bugs. Thanks to dstress. I can get a good many test cases in it. Currently I guess about 1/3 test cases pass. I'd love to listen how CONs think and how PROs think. DavidLWalter has a standing offer to /sell/ licenses to the backend.
Oct 16 2007
DavidL <DavidL 126.com> BCS Wrote:Reply to davidl,Ahh, yet, LLVM, GCC are possible options. And I personally want to make it a script too.currently DParser passes some dstress test cases. I'm in the mood of glueing it with DMD backend. With current C++ interface improvements in D, I think DParser is possible to glue with DMD backend. I hope Walter can provide an interface , and a backend library. Though it's a great bunches of work :D It's still possible to glue with LLVM and take advantage from the work done by lindquist. But a general backend interface not only glueing with one backend is better for me in some sense. 1. This benefits several scripting langs. Those lang can take advantage from DMD backend to generate native code. 2. The work on DParser can therefore attract more people to help. And thus more bug fixes can be done. DMD C++ frontend might get some patches from those bug fixes. 3. DParser itself can create branches as sandboxes to give the community some experiments and coding in D is relatively easier than C++ in the original DMD frontend for the community. So community can really make some experiments on certain branches, and as sandboxes. And Walter can view this sandbox and maybe lucky enough to pick one good feature integrated in DMD. 4. This gives us a bit elegance. D compiles D. This is *not* an urgent request. Cause DParser compare to DMD frontend is still not relatively stable. I'm trying to fix those bugs. Thanks to dstress. I can get a good many test cases in it. Currently I guess about 1/3 test cases pass. I'd love to listen how CONs think and how PROs think. DavidLWalter has a standing offer to /sell/ licenses to the backend.
Oct 16 2007