www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Quick question about target patforms . . .

reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
. . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
trawling around.

Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
implementing applications on MeeGo?  If not maybe it should?

I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
regarding Python, Flash and Java!

--=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 russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Oct 24 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
IMO, that's an emphatic "yes".
Oct 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.
 
 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo?  If not maybe it should?
 
 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent reply Olivier Pisano <olivier.pisano laposte.net> writes:
Le 25/10/2010 09:27, Walter Bright a écrit :

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


I am not sure the D GC wouldn't be a problem for Apple, as they did 
remove the Objective-C GC on iOS.
Oct 25 2010
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:23:49 +0400, Olivier Pisano  =

<olivier.pisano laposte.net> wrote:


 Le 25/10/2010 09:27, Walter Bright a =C3=A9crit :

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ =






are

 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "=






app

 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


 I am not sure the D GC wouldn't be a problem for Apple, as they did  =



 remove the Objective-C GC on iOS.


IIRC they only did that for performance reasons. Apple now allows buildi=
ng  =

iOS application with any tool, including Flash (that does feature a GC a=
s  =

part of the VM but that's hardly relevant) so there shouldn't be any  =

problem with D.
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent Olivier Pisano <olivier.pisano laposte.net> writes:
Le 25/10/2010 11:37, Denis Koroskin a écrit :

 On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:23:49 +0400, Olivier Pisano
 <olivier.pisano laposte.net> wrote:


 Le 25/10/2010 09:27, Walter Bright a écrit :

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


 I am not sure the D GC wouldn't be a problem for Apple, as they did
 remove the Objective-C GC on iOS.


 IIRC they only did that for performance reasons. Apple now allows
 building iOS application with any tool, including Flash (that does
 feature a GC as part of the VM but that's hardly relevant) so there
 shouldn't be any problem with D.


I wasn't aware they did change their views on what can be used to build 
iOS applications. There should be no problem then.
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:37:26 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2korden gmail.com>  
wrote:


 On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:23:49 +0400, Olivier Pisano  
 <olivier.pisano laposte.net> wrote:


 Le 25/10/2010 09:27, Walter Bright a écrit :

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++  
 are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple  
 "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


 I am not sure the D GC wouldn't be a problem for Apple, as they did  
 remove the Objective-C GC on iOS.


 IIRC they only did that for performance reasons. Apple now allows  
 building iOS application with any tool, including Flash (that does  
 feature a GC as part of the VM but that's hardly relevant) so there  
 shouldn't be any problem with D.


My understanding (and I haven't read the rules directly, just news  
articles about them) is that they no longer mind if you use a tool to  
*convert* something written for e.g. flash to objective-C code.  But I  
think they still require you to build your app with their compiler.

If that's not the case, and you have to use iOS' GC, I think D's runtime  
can easily be rewritten to use it.  It's built to allow swappable GC  
implementations.

-Steve
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[ . . . ]

 My understanding (and I haven't read the rules directly, just news =20
 articles about them) is that they no longer mind if you use a tool to =


=20

 *convert* something written for e.g. flash to objective-C code.  But I =


=20

 think they still require you to build your app with their compiler.


I had understood from reading the press release and commentaries, that
the only constraint was that the application had to be self-contained
depending only on things delivered as standard by Apple in the OS
distribution.  This doesn't imply having to use their toolchain.  But I
may have misinterpreted.

--=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 russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 12:11:05 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy yahoo.com> said:


 If that's not the case, and you have to use iOS' GC, I think D's 
 runtime  can easily be rewritten to use it.  It's built to allow 
 swappable GC  implementations.


There's no GC on iOS, for now it's only available on Mac OS X. And the 
Mac OS X GC does not support pointers to the interior of memory blocks, 
only pointers to the block's address. So it's not a good fit for D. It 
also requires memory barriers when reading/writing to pointers.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 09:27, Walter Bright wrote:

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


For that we have ldc and gdc. He would also need an Objective-C/D bridge 
and bindings to the Cocoa Touch framework. Here are two Objective-C/D 
bridges:

* http://dsource.org/projects/dstep - More bindings, less complete 
bridge, tool to generate bindings

* http://michelf.com/projects/d-objc-bridge - More complete bridge, not 
as many bindings

None of these bridges have Cocoa Touch bindings.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Oct 25 2010
parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 07:55:12 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> said:


 On 2010-10-25 09:27, Walter Bright wrote:

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.
 
 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?
 
 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 
 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


 
 For that we have ldc and gdc. He would also need an Objective-C/D 
 bridge and bindings to the Cocoa Touch framework. Here are two 
 Objective-C/D bridges:
 
 * http://dsource.org/projects/dstep - More bindings, less complete 
 bridge, tool to generate bindings
 
 * http://michelf.com/projects/d-objc-bridge - More complete bridge, not 
 as many bindings
 
 None of these bridges have Cocoa Touch bindings.


Personally, I've found that, even though it works, the bridging 
approach doesn't scale very well because of the insane amount of 
generated glue code. That's why I changed course and abandoned my 
bridge (the second in your list), working instead on making DMD 
directly aware of the Objective-C object model. This way, you can have 
extern(Objective-C) classes and use them as if they were D classes 
(mostly), no wrapper class and no glue code necessary.
<http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Michel Fortin:


 That's why I changed course and abandoned my 
 bridge (the second in your list), working instead on making DMD 
 directly aware of the Objective-C object model. This way, you can have 
 extern(Objective-C) classes and use them as if they were D classes 
 (mostly), no wrapper class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>


It's a cute idea, and I presume those binding are useful, but if those changes
will not be folded back into the D language/compiler, then this idea may
eventually die out.

And in my opinion this syntax is not very nice (but I remember why the
attribute syntax was not used, so this may be an acceptable compromise):

void getCharacters(wchar* buffer, NSRange range) [getCharacters:range:];

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 25 2010
parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 12:31:47 -0400, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> said:


 Michel Fortin:
 

 That's why I changed course and abandoned my
 bridge (the second in your list), working instead on making DMD
 directly aware of the Objective-C object model. This way, you can have
 extern(Objective-C) classes and use them as if they were D classes
 (mostly), no wrapper class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>


 
 It's a cute idea, and I presume those binding are useful, but if those 
 changes will not be folded back into the D language/compiler, then this 
 idea may eventually die out.


My goal is to have something that can be folded into DMD.

If for some reason Walter decides against it, I can still build an 
installer that downloads DMD, patches it, and then installs it. Minus 
the patch part, I already have such an installer with D for Xcode. 
That's plan B.

But in all cases, the first step is to make it work.



 And in my opinion this syntax is not very nice (but I remember why the 
 attribute syntax was not used, so this may be an acceptable compromise):
 
 void getCharacters(wchar* buffer, NSRange range) [getCharacters:range:];


I'm not too concerned by the syntax, it's the easiest part to change in 
the whole thing.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:

 Personally, I've found that, even though it works, the bridging approach 
 doesn't scale very well because of the insane amount of generated glue 
 code. That's why I changed course and abandoned my bridge (the second in 
 your list), working instead on making DMD directly aware of the 
 Objective-C object model. This way, you can have extern(Objective-C) 
 classes and use them as if they were D classes (mostly), no wrapper 
 class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>



I think this is a worthy and valuable project, analogous to D's support for COM 
objects on Windows. Once you get it done, I'd like to get it folded into the 
main dmd. We'll also need a documentation page!

Thanks for doing this.
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 12:56:41 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:


 Michel Fortin wrote:

 Personally, I've found that, even though it works, the bridging 
 approach doesn't scale very well because of the insane amount of 
 generated glue code. That's why I changed course and abandoned my 
 bridge (the second in your list), working instead on making DMD 
 directly aware of the Objective-C object model. This way, you can have 
 extern(Objective-C) classes and use them as if they were D classes 
 (mostly), no wrapper class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>


 
 I think this is a worthy and valuable project, analogous to D's support 
 for COM objects on Windows. Once you get it done, I'd like to get it 
 folded into the main dmd. We'll also need a documentation page!


Great! Thanks for your support. :-)

Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given 
that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign 
compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and 
it'll take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this 
in my spare time.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:

 Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given 
 that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign 
 compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and it'll 
 take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this in my 
 spare time.
 


I'll look forward to it. This is an important step in D's aim to rule the world 
and crush all opposition.
Oct 25 2010
next sibling parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On 25/10/10 10:16 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given
 that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign
 compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and
 it'll take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this
 in my spare time.


 I'll look forward to it. This is an important step in D's aim to rule
 the world and crush all opposition.


And the day that happens shall henceforth be known as "D-Day" :-)
Oct 25 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 25/10/10 10:16 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given
 that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign
 compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and
 it'll take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this
 in my spare time.


 I'll look forward to it. This is an important step in D's aim to rule
 the world and crush all opposition.


 
 And the day that happens shall henceforth be known as "D-Day" :-)


Aka "Operation Overlord"!
Oct 25 2010
parent reply Jimmy Cao <jcao219 gmail.com> writes:
I was talking to a guy about D earlier.
He said that C++ has too much momentum, whilst D is just standing still.
I'm sure if D were to gain this platform, it would be able to gain serious
momentum.

Operation Overlord, indeed.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com>wrote:


 Peter Alexander wrote:


 On 25/10/10 10:16 PM, Walter Bright wrote:


 Michel Fortin wrote:


 Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given
 that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign
 compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and
 it'll take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this
 in my spare time.


 I'll look forward to it. This is an important step in D's aim to rule
 the world and crush all opposition.


 And the day that happens shall henceforth be known as "D-Day" :-)


 Aka "Operation Overlord"!
Oct 25 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jimmy Cao wrote:

 I was talking to a guy about D earlier.
 He said that C++ has too much momentum, whilst D is just standing still.
 I'm sure if D were to gain this platform, it would be able to gain 
 serious momentum.


I'm curious how C++ deals with Cocoa.
Oct 25 2010
parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 19:51:18 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:


 Jimmy Cao wrote:

 I was talking to a guy about D earlier.
 He said that C++ has too much momentum, whilst D is just standing still.
 I'm sure if D were to gain this platform, it would be able to gain 
 serious momentum.


 
 I'm curious how C++ deals with Cocoa.


Apple has this Objective-C++ thing, where C++ objects cohabit with 
Objective-C object. It's nothing fancy really as both Objective-C and 
C++ are extension to C, and there is no overlap in syntax.

	class MyCppObject {
		int i;
	};

	 interface MyObjcObject : NSObject {
		int i;
	}
	 end

	MyCppObject *cpp = new MyCppObject;
	MyObjcObject *objc = [[MyObjcObject alloc] init];

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 17:16:09 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:


 Michel Fortin wrote:

 Note that it's also a much bigger project than support for COM given 
 that the Objective-C object model and method calls are very foreign 
 compared to C++ or COM. So it's not going to be a small patch, and 
 it'll take a couple of months before it's ready as I'm only doing this 
 in my spare time.


 
 I'll look forward to it. This is an important step in D's aim to rule 
 the world and crush all opposition.


You set your goals too high. :-)

Nevertheless, Objective-C support is quite important in the Apple 
ecosystem because all the higher-level APIs are provided in that form. 
And D with Objective-C support will have stronger type-safety than 
Objective-C itself; perhaps that'll be compelling enough to make some 
Objective-C programmers switch to D, I know it would for me.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter:


 I think this is a worthy and valuable project, analogous to D's support for
COM 
 objects on Windows. Once you get it done, I'd like to get it folded into the 
 main dmd. We'll also need a documentation page!


If you want to fold it inside DMD then I suggest to introduce a standard syntax
to give arguments to attributes (that will be useful for many other purposes
too), so that [...] syntax may be expressed using the   attribute syntax.

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 18:56, Walter Bright wrote:

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 Personally, I've found that, even though it works, the bridging
 approach doesn't scale very well because of the insane amount of
 generated glue code. That's why I changed course and abandoned my
 bridge (the second in your list), working instead on making DMD
 directly aware of the Objective-C object model. This way, you can have
 extern(Objective-C) classes and use them as if they were D classes
 (mostly), no wrapper class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>



 I think this is a worthy and valuable project, analogous to D's support
 for COM objects on Windows. Once you get it done, I'd like to get it
 folded into the main dmd. We'll also need a documentation page!

 Thanks for doing this.


Great to hear that you support this.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-10-25 15:13, Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2010-10-25 07:55:12 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> said:


 On 2010-10-25 09:27, Walter Bright wrote:

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo? If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


 For that we have ldc and gdc. He would also need an Objective-C/D
 bridge and bindings to the Cocoa Touch framework. Here are two
 Objective-C/D bridges:

 * http://dsource.org/projects/dstep - More bindings, less complete
 bridge, tool to generate bindings

 * http://michelf.com/projects/d-objc-bridge - More complete bridge,
 not as many bindings

 None of these bridges have Cocoa Touch bindings.


 Personally, I've found that, even though it works, the bridging approach
 doesn't scale very well because of the insane amount of generated glue
 code. That's why I changed course and abandoned my bridge (the second in
 your list), working instead on making DMD directly aware of the
 Objective-C object model. This way, you can have extern(Objective-C)
 classes and use them as if they were D classes (mostly), no wrapper
 class and no glue code necessary.
 <http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/dobjc-dead-end-start-anew/>


Oh, I didn't know you had come that far, let met know if you need any 
help. I've started building a tool to create bindings using Clang, it's 
actually quite easy to use the Clang libraries and the result are a lot 
better then my previous tool.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 Russel Winder wrote:

 . . . but they may have been asked before and I just missed them in
 trawling around.

 Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 implementing applications on MeeGo?  If not maybe it should?

 I guess the same question goes for iOS -- although Object-C and C++ are
 the assumed languages of development, nothing in the various Apple "app
 stores" rules would discriminate against D -- unlike what they do
 regarding Python, Flash and Java!


 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


With ARM being the 3rd most modern popular platform, and the sensibly cheap rate
you can get such hardware, you'd need a silly reason *not* to port to ARM.

Still waiting for my Sheevaplug to come through the post... :)
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 00:27 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[ . . . ]

 Yes - we just need an ARM version of the compiler!


I think I am with Iain on this one.  ARM is the architecture of the
future (indeed the present) for embedded and many more places.  There
will therefore be orders of magnitude more ARM processors that x86 and
86_64 ones -- actually there already are.  Having cross-compilation to
ARM is therefore the place to be if you want serious take up.

--=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 russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Oct 25 2010
prev sibling parent reply Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:30:16 +0100

 "Russel" =3D=3D Russel Winder wrote:












Russel> Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
Russel> implementing applications on MeeGo?  If not maybe it should?

For MeeGo we need fully workable QtD as well. ;)



Sincerely,
Gour (who is betting to target Meego with (Qt)D

--=20

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: CDBF17CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 25 2010
parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 08:23 +0200, Gour wrote:

 On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:30:16 +0100

 "Russel" =3D=3D Russel Winder wrote:












=20
 Russel> Is the intention that D should be the language of choice for
 Russel> implementing applications on MeeGo?  If not maybe it should?
=20
 For MeeGo we need fully workable QtD as well. ;)


Indeed. I hope it was clear that the agenda behind my comment was as
much QtD is needed as ARM port is needed.

--=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 russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Oct 26 2010