• Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Dec 27 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Dec 27 2008

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Tim,
 
 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 
 personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things
 about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the
 benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and
 make yet another version of Java/C# ?
 


 best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you counted Mono,
 add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally, depending on
 what version was supported, it might enable you to write Silverlight
 apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run cross-functionally in a
 web browser.
 
 TK
 


 
 Agreed.
 
 Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if someone 
 has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall, such initiative is 
 really the most important virtue for any hope of success).  For myself, I'm 
 kind of learning not to "restrain" D with my personal biases.  Sometimes 
 we just can't predict what kind of benefits might be in store for the
language, 
 the platform, or other people; such expiditionary moves might not be
successful 
 in themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to the 
 limelight in some future endeavor.
 
 D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer, and 
 .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.  Therefore, 
 I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D is better because 
 it's a compiled language".  It may be important to keep the vision a little 
 more open to other technologies (like VM's and such) especially as
optimizations 
 improve in these areas.  Otherwise, D will be at risk of loosing it's general 
 purpose nature... and being permanently fixated as a niche language.  Porting 
 to .NET, therefore, becomes a clever way of "proving" D's viability on other 
 technology platfroms.
 
 I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very competitive and 
 comfortable programming environment such that it would be a welcome
alternative 
 even in the .NET world.  Microsoft may even come to see the benefits, since 
 D might attract an even more diverse audience to the platform, people who 
 would have otherwise avoided it.  You never know. ;)
 
 That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting with .NET 
 and Mono.
 
 -JJR
 
 
 


You make a valid point. Attracting new developers to D by supporting more
platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.

however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with limited
time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the short term on
adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port. I can live with C# on
.net for now and as I said before it's close enough to a D.net.
On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to C++ after
using D.  
so answering Walter's original question:
for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support which is  a
HIGH priority. 

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 Hello Tim,
 
 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 
 personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things
 about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the
 benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and
 make yet another version of Java/C# ?
 


 probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
 counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally,
 depending on what version was supported, it might enable you to
 write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run
 cross-functionally in a web browser.
 
 TK
 


 
 Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
 someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall, such
 initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
 success).  For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
 my personal biases.  Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
 benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
 people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
 themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
 the limelight in some future endeavor.
 
 D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer,
 and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.
 Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D
 is better because it's a compiled language".  It may be important to
 keep the vision a little more open to other technologies (like VM's
 and such) especially as optimizations improve in these areas.
 Otherwise, D will be at risk of loosing it's general purpose
 nature... and being permanently fixated as a niche language.  Porting
 to .NET, therefore, becomes a clever way of "proving" D's viability
 on other technology platfroms.
 
 I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
 competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
 would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world.  Microsoft may
 even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even more
 diverse audience to the platform, people who would have otherwise
 avoided it.  You never know. ;)
 
 That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
 with .NET and Mono.
 
 -JJR
 


 more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.
 
 however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
 limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
 short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port. I
 can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
 enough to a D.net.
 
 On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to C++
 after using D.
 
 so answering Walter's original question:
 
 for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support which
 is  a HIGH priority.
 



Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to prioritizing 
which platform most needs to be worked on.  That's why the completion of 
.NET support would probably have to be done by another... which may be the 
case already.

-JJR

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to prioritizing 
 which platform most needs to be worked on.  That's why the completion of 
 .NET support would probably have to be done by another... which may be 
 the case already.


Cristi (of zerobugs fame) is doing the D.NET compiler.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Walter,

 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to
 prioritizing which platform most needs to be worked on.  That's why
 the completion of .NET support would probably have to be done by
 another... which may be the case already.
 


 



Yep, I knew he was working on it.  I just wasn't willing to presume the extent 
of responsibility 
he was willing to take for the task.

-JJR

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Yigal,

 John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Tim,

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:

 personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things
 about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the
 benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and
 make yet another version of Java/C# ?


 probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
 counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally,
 depending on what version was supported, it might enable you to
 write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run
 cross-functionally in a web browser.

 TK



 Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
 someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall, such
 initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
 success). For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
 my personal biases. Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
 benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
 people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
 themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
 the limelight in some future endeavor.

 D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer,
 and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.
 Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D
 is better because it's a compiled language". It may be important to
 keep the vision a little more open to other technologies (like VM's
 and such) especially as optimizations improve in these areas.
 Otherwise, D will be at risk of loosing it's general purpose
 nature... and being permanently fixated as a niche language. Porting
 to .NET, therefore, becomes a clever way of "proving" D's viability
 on other technology platfroms.

 I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
 competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
 would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world. Microsoft may
 even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even more
 diverse audience to the platform, people who would have otherwise
 avoided it. You never know. ;)

 That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
 with .NET and Mono.

 -JJR


 more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.

 however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
 limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
 short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port. I
 can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
 enough to a D.net.

 On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to C++
 after using D.

 so answering Walter's original question:

 for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support which
 is a HIGH priority.



 Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to prioritizing
 which platform most needs to be worked on. That's why the completion of
 .NET support would probably have to be done by another... which may be
 the case already.

 -JJR


attracting new developers, I personally wouldn't use it and I doubt any 
other existing D developers would use it. There's also another concern 
about such a port - the libraries. The phobos/Tango split hurt D enough 
and adding the .net libs (or the JVM ones) to the mix will make this 
issue even worse.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Hello Yigal,
 
 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 Hello Tim,
 
 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 
 personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best
 things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc
 with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw
 that away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?
 


 probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
 counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework.
 Finally, depending on what version was supported, it might enable
 you to write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps
 that run cross-functionally in a web browser.
 
 TK
 


 
 Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
 someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall,
 such initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
 success). For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
 my personal biases. Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
 benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
 people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
 themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
 the limelight in some future endeavor.
 
 D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or
 prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities
 to explore. Therefore, I don't think we should get too
 tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled
 language". It may be important to keep the vision a little more
 open to other technologies (like VM's and such) especially as
 optimizations improve in these areas. Otherwise, D will be at risk
 of loosing it's general purpose nature... and being permanently
 fixated as a niche language. Porting to .NET, therefore, becomes a
 clever way of "proving" D's viability on other technology
 platfroms.
 
 I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
 competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
 would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world. Microsoft
 may even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even
 more diverse audience to the platform, people who would have
 otherwise avoided it. You never know. ;)
 
 That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
 with .NET and Mono.
 
 -JJR
 


 more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.
 
 however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
 limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
 short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port.
 I can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
 enough to a D.net.
 
 On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to
 C++ after using D.
 
 so answering Walter's original question:
 
 for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support
 which is a HIGH priority.
 


 prioritizing which platform most needs to be worked on. That's why
 the completion of .NET support would probably have to be done by
 another... which may be the case already.
 
 -JJR
 


 attracting new developers, I personally wouldn't use it and I doubt
 any other existing D developers would use it. There's also another
 concern about such a port - the libraries. The phobos/Tango split hurt
 D enough and adding the .net libs (or the JVM ones) to the mix will
 make this issue even worse.
 



Two things I question in your post:

(1) The assumption that existing D developers won't use it.

(2) The assumption that the D port will only use .net libs.

I don't think we have enough information yet on either point.  Perhaps you 
know more than I do. :)

-JJR

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c104808cb3654b402e6d0 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Yigal,

 John Reimer wrote:

 Hello Yigal,

 John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Tim,

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:

 personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best
 things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc
 with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw
 that away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?


 probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
 counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework.
 Finally, depending on what version was supported, it might enable
 you to write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps
 that run cross-functionally in a web browser.

 TK



 Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
 someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall,
 such initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
 success). For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
 my personal biases. Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
 benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
 people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
 themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
 the limelight in some future endeavor.

 D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or
 prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities
 to explore. Therefore, I don't think we should get too
 tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled
 language". It may be important to keep the vision a little more
 open to other technologies (like VM's and such) especially as
 optimizations improve in these areas. Otherwise, D will be at risk
 of loosing it's general purpose nature... and being permanently
 fixated as a niche language. Porting to .NET, therefore, becomes a
 clever way of "proving" D's viability on other technology
 platfroms.

 I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
 competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
 would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world. Microsoft
 may even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even
 more diverse audience to the platform, people who would have
 otherwise avoided it. You never know. ;)

 That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
 with .NET and Mono.

 -JJR


 more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.

 however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
 limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
 short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port.
 I can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
 enough to a D.net.

 On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to
 C++ after using D.

 so answering Walter's original question:

 for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support
 which is a HIGH priority.


 prioritizing which platform most needs to be worked on. That's why
 the completion of .NET support would probably have to be done by
 another... which may be the case already.

 -JJR


 attracting new developers, I personally wouldn't use it and I doubt
 any other existing D developers would use it. There's also another
 concern about such a port - the libraries. The phobos/Tango split hurt
 D enough and adding the .net libs (or the JVM ones) to the mix will
 make this issue even worse.



 Two things I question in your post:

 (1) The assumption that existing D developers won't use it.


I'm going to lump .NET and JVM (and the Flash VM) together here and say that 
there are some things (particularly on the internet) that unfortunately, due 
to existing software infrastructure (ex, browser), can't realistically be 
done with natively-compiled code. Whenever I'm unlucky enough to find myself 
in one of these situations, I'd much rather use D than any of the languages 
usually associated with such platforms. And even with .NET in particular, 
while C# does have a lot of good things going for it (including a number of 
things I would like to see added to D), the templates and metaprogramming 
are just abysmal and I personally find those more important than the C# 
niceities that D lacks.

 (2) The assumption that the D port will only use .net libs.


I'd view this as more of a concern that the D port would use the .NET libs, 
rather than an assumption. If a D.NET ended up needing to use the .NET libs 
in place of phobos and tango, or if the .NET platform necessitated certain 
changes in the phobos/tango APIs, then that would indeed be a problem that 
would take away much (though not all) of the usefulness of a D.NET.

 I don't think we have enough information yet on either point.  Perhaps you 
 know more than I do. :)

 -JJR

 

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to John,


 (2) The assumption that the D port will only use .net libs.
 


Thinking about it more (and in the context of the above) their might be some 
interesting results of D.NET. 

Could a D based .NET assembly transparently call into both .NET managed libs 
and unmanaged CRT style libs? 
How does the safed stuff map to the managed environment model?
Could D provide a clean language for mixing native code (totally normal D), 
normal "C#" style managed code (using safed) and managed and CLR but unsafe 
code (C# has this as well IIRC)?