www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - How could I contribute and clear status

reply Mosfet <mosfet anonymous.org> writes:

I would like to contribute to D and to do so I plan to take two students 
in their engineer internship next year (from feb-July).
The problem is it's still not clear what's need to be done with D.
Last time I ask I was told not to use D 2.0 because it's changing and we 
cannot rely on it.
Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it 
but what needs to be done ?
Sep 01 2008
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
 Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it 
 but what needs to be done ?
This is just my personal opinion: if you like and you can, I suggest you to help LLVMDC instead, I think that in few months it may become the best D compiler around (better than DMD and GDC). Bye, bearophile
Sep 01 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Christian Kamm <kamm-incasoftware removethis.de> writes:
Mosfet wrote:
 Since I am interested in GDC, I was planning to get them working on it
 but what needs to be done ?
If you're not set on GDC, we at LLVMDC ( http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc ) would certainly welcome help. While x86 is looking good and probably just needs more bugfixes, other platforms are still missing some key ingredients: A rough overview of platform issues can be found at http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc/wiki/PlatformSupport . Generally, the target dependent stuff is * inline asm * exception handling * runtime Where the runtime header encompasses a variety of issues. If you need detailed information, feel free to post on the LLVMDC mailing list: llvmdc googlegroups.com Regards, Christian
Sep 01 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
A quote wrote some time ago:

"Sean Kelly" wrote
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 dsimcha wrote:
On another note, anyone have any idea when/if Tango for D2, and 
 Tangobos for Tangofor D2, will be available?  There are things I like  
 and dislike aboutboth Tangoand Phobos, and I really wish I could mix  
 and match modules from themwithoutgiving up my D2 features.  For  
 example, I like Phobos's much simpler IOAPI, less"OO everywhere" look  
 and feel and "simple operations should be simple"mentality,but I like  
 Tango's extra math and threading stuff and richer featureset in 
 general.  Also, I've written a decent amount of Phobos code that I 
 don't feel likeporting.
There's no timeframe for D2 support at the moment. I may look into at least having the runtime be cross-compatible, but porting the user code would require changes in structure / coding strategy that I can't see anyone wanting to make.
It seems to me that some people do actually like D2 and aren't using Tango precisely because there's no D2 support. So who knows, maybe you'll find there's a new crop of D2/Tango volunteers that show up once the ball gets rolling. Steven S. for one, perhaps.
Yup. There has been enough interest that I think it's worth getting the runtime working at least. The only real obstacle to that right now is time. The runtime uses the standard C, Posix, and Win32 packages for various things and none of these are D2 compatible at the moment. So the sticking point is really that I need to find the time to go through the standard C and Posix specs and add "in" to all the function parameters that are const in the C APIs. I should have left /*const*/ as a placeholder when I created the modules but... oh well. Live and learn.
Not /*const*/ but Const!()
Sep 06 2008
parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
Sorry, wrong thread
Sep 06 2008