digitalmars.D - LLVM progress
- Flamaros (5/5) Sep 07 2013 I read an interesting news about LLVM :
- Benjamin Thaut (7/12) Sep 07 2013 I doubt that LDC has compile times that are 3-5 times longer then those
- Walter Bright (5/8) Sep 07 2013 Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses s...
- Russel Winder (41/45) Sep 07 2013 urs=20
- Manu (5/10) Sep 09 2013 This sounds like good news. I'm very interested to hear more news from L...
I read an interesting news about LLVM : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI It's certainly a great things for ldc too. Is there a hope to see ldc as the main D compiler if it's full featured under Windows?
Sep 07 2013
Am 07.09.2013 15:20, schrieb Flamaros:I read an interesting news about LLVM : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI It's certainly a great things for ldc too. Is there a hope to see ldc as the main D compiler if it's full featured under Windows?I doubt that LDC has compile times that are 3-5 times longer then those of DMD (even in debug without optimization). D advertises with short compile times, so unless LDC improves I don't see this happening. And thats only one of the points. Kind Regards Benjamin Thaut
Sep 07 2013
On 9/7/2013 9:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:I doubt that LDC has compile times that are 3-5 times longer then those of DMD (even in debug without optimization). D advertises with short compile times, so unless LDC improves I don't see this happening. And thats only one of the points.Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses spurs improvements in all of them. When I was at GoingNative2013, it was pretty obvious to me that the playful and friendly competition between gcc, clang, and vc has improved all three greatly.
Sep 07 2013
On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 10:08 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: [=E2=80=A6]Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses sp=urs=20improvements in all of them. When I was at GoingNative2013, it was pretty==20obvious to me that the playful and friendly competition between gcc, clan=g, and=20vc has improved all three greatly.As has been proved in many areas of life, having multiple players in a game validates the game. Having multiple compilers, books, IDEs etc. for D programming is a mark that D is player in the programming languages game. Sadly D is still not competing against C++ in the way it deserves. Of course C++ is now a niche language. The primary "war" just now is native vs. VM, and VM remains in the ascendency. Go and Rust are the "poster children" for native due to their backers. The questions is whether D should position itself in this "war". I say yes. There needs to be more books on D, and use of D in various areas. QtD, GtkD, (wxD?), D drivers for SQL, Mongo, Couch, Redis, Neo, Riak, etc. all need to be high quality and pushed via reports and talks at non-D conferences. Vibe.d is a huge possibility now that Node.js is losing it's "lustre" and Vert.x and Go are getting serious traction. (At least in the small start-ups arena.) D in GCC and D on LLVM are, for me, far more important than DMD, since they provide penetration into the market via the market leaders. D on Linux via GCC and LLVM, D on OX S via LLVM, (and on Windows, I suppose, via any route :-). The issue for me is to stop worrying about internal contemplative reflection on 10 years of D evolution, and get knowledge of the real-world use of D out there and in people's faces. Stop looking inward and start looking outward. This is the trick Go and Rust have picked up, albeit not as well as they could. D is a major player in the GCC and LLVM worlds, let's take this as read and exploit it for the future of high-quality, effective and pleasurable native code development. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Sep 07 2013
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:35:47 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 10:08 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: […]That also my concern, LLVM tends to replace gcc as C/C++ compiler. LLVM promise to simplify languages compatibility, Apple show us how much is important to improve developers productivity. Google think in the same way with the Go. I think the LLVM message is : developers would be more productive if compiler generate better reports, can aggregate more pieces of software and have better tools (IDE, static analyzer, debugger). In this way D and LLVM philosophies seems compatible.Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses spurs improvements in all of them. When I was at GoingNative2013, it was pretty obvious to me that the playful and friendly competition between gcc, clang, and vc has improved all three greatly.As has been proved in many areas of life, having multiple players in a game validates the game. Having multiple compilers, books, IDEs etc. for D programming is a mark that D is player in the programming languages game. Sadly D is still not competing against C++ in the way it deserves. Of course C++ is now a niche language. The primary "war" just now is native vs. VM, and VM remains in the ascendency. Go and Rust are the "poster children" for native due to their backers. The questions is whether D should position itself in this "war". I say yes. There needs to be more books on D, and use of D in various areas. QtD, GtkD, (wxD?), D drivers for SQL, Mongo, Couch, Redis, Neo, Riak, etc. all need to be high quality and pushed via reports and talks at non-D conferences. Vibe.d is a huge possibility now that Node.js is losing it's "lustre" and Vert.x and Go are getting serious traction. (At least in the small start-ups arena.) D in GCC and D on LLVM are, for me, far more important than DMD, since they provide penetration into the market via the market leaders. D on Linux via GCC and LLVM, D on OX S via LLVM, (and on Windows, I suppose, via any route :-).The issue for me is to stop worrying about internal contemplative reflection on 10 years of D evolution, and get knowledge of the real-world use of D out there and in people's faces. Stop looking inward and start looking outward. This is the trick Go and Rust have picked up, albeit not as well as they could. D is a major player in the GCC and LLVM worlds, let's take this as read and exploit it for the future of high-quality, effective and pleasurable native code development.
Sep 07 2013
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote:Not to mention the importance of ARM support.It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on ARM compatible application for my day job, that why DQuick is tough to be easy to port those devices.
Sep 09 2013
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 15:56:17 UTC, Flamaros wrote:On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote:We'll need ARM support too for our applications, sooner or later.Not to mention the importance of ARM support.It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on ARM compatible application for my day job, that why DQuick is tough to be easy to port those devices.
Sep 10 2013
"Flamaros" <flamaros.xavier gmail.com> On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 08:36:21 UTC, Chris wrote:On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 15:56:17 UTC, Flamaros wrote:Are you telling it's a need for D community or for your company? If it's for D community I hope be able to help a little when compilers will be ready.On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote:We'll need ARM support too for our applications, sooner or later.Not to mention the importance of ARM support.It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on ARM compatible application for my day job, that why DQuick is tough to be easy to port those devices.
Sep 10 2013
On 7 September 2013 23:20, Flamaros <flamaros.xavier gmail.com> wrote:I read an interesting news about LLVM : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.**php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI<http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI> It's certainly a great things for ldc too. Is there a hope to see ldc as the main D compiler if it's full featured under Windows?This sounds like good news. I'm very interested to hear more news from LLDB. It will be a marvelous day when LDC 'just works' on Windows. No worrying about object/library formats, exception handling, runtime libraries, or debuginfo compatibility.
Sep 09 2013