www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Two Questions

reply "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
Popped into my head today.

What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

And why?
Feb 04 2014
next sibling parent "Craig Dillabaugh" <cdillaba cg.scs.carleton.ca> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


I on develop Linux and work with a 64 bit.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Most my work is on 32 bit linux. I use 32 bit just because that's 
what worked when I started most these projects and don't have any 
need to change. Linux is simply what's on the web servers I spend 
much of my dev time on.

I do Windows stuff too though, but very little 64 bit there 
either.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kelet" <kelethunter gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


My main development platform is x86_64 Linux, because it was free 
and well-supported so I downloaded it for my laptop which is my 
main development machine. My laptop has an AMD64 processor, so 
why not use the proper OS architecture for it?

I use Windows 7 on my Desktop, which I do a fair amount of 
development on, and have a few OSes set up in VirtualBox (a VM) 
to ensure my software works on most major operating system setups 
if necessary.

Regards,
Kelet
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Atila Neves" <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


Arch Linux 64-bit on a Lenovo laptop from work. It's what I use 
to develop everything and I wouldn't have it any other way.


 And why?


Why Linux or why 64-bit?

Atila
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux x64

why? Linux fits me well, for all the usual reasons.

The philosophy of a small set of specialized tools that do their 
jobs very well and interface sensibly however I want them to 
appeals to me, much more so than having a leviathan that pretends 
to know what I want. Having said that, I don't want to be stuck 
without the occasional convenience. Hence: linux.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com> writes:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:18:24 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:


 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?
 
 And why?


64bit linux.  Cause it's open-source Unix(y), that is, the proper design 
for an operating system.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux 64-bit

Why? Because it is default. There should be a reason to go for 
anything else, not other way around :)
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "tcak" <tcak pcak.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux, 64bit.

I have developed an HTTP 1.1 web server, and it is being used in 
production server which runs Linux 64 bit.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 
when that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) 
versions.


 And why?


Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on 
development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D 
development there too. The big downside is lack of a package 
manager for getting my hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] 
helps but is no match for apt.

[1]: http://brew.sh/
Feb 04 2014
parent reply 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when
 that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions.


 And why?


 Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on
 development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

 I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development
 there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my
 hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt.

 [1]: http://brew.sh/


Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up.  You'd 
recommend Brew over the alternatives?  Sorry, rather new to developing 
with this OS...
Feb 05 2014
next sibling parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote:

 On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 
 14.04 when
 that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) 
 versions.


 And why?


 Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on
 development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

 I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D 
 development
 there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for 
 getting my
 hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match 
 for apt.

 [1]: http://brew.sh/


 Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up.  You'd 
 recommend Brew over the alternatives?  Sorry, rather new to 
 developing with this OS...


the sad truth is that there is no convenient way of doing D on OS 
X, but recent changes in Mono-D have brough some ease to it 
actually. still forget about any debug because there is NO DEBUG 
INFO generated with both DMD & LDC (not tested GDC yet).

as for GDB and other GNU stuff, yes brew is simple enough to get 
it done.
Feb 05 2014
parent 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 2/5/14, 6:41, evilrat wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote:

 On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when
 that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions.


 And why?


 Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on
 development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

 I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development
 there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my
 hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt.

 [1]: http://brew.sh/


 Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up.  You'd
 recommend Brew over the alternatives?  Sorry, rather new to developing
 with this OS...


 the sad truth is that there is no convenient way of doing D on OS X, but
 recent changes in Mono-D have brough some ease to it actually. still
 forget about any debug because there is NO DEBUG INFO generated with
 both DMD & LDC (not tested GDC yet).

 as for GDB and other GNU stuff, yes brew is simple enough to get it done.



Ok, thanks!
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote:

 On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 
 14.04 when
 that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) 
 versions.


 And why?


 Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on
 development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

 I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D 
 development
 there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for 
 getting my
 hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match 
 for apt.

 [1]: http://brew.sh/


 Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up.  You'd 
 recommend Brew over the alternatives?  Sorry, rather new to 
 developing with this OS...


Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well 
behaved where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions.
Feb 05 2014
parent reply 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 2/5/14, 6:55, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:33:25 UTC, 1100110 wrote:

 On 2/4/14, 11:27, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 I primarily use Ubuntu (Linux) 12.04 64bit. I'll update to 14.04 when
 that comes out as i only install the LTS (long term support) versions.


 And why?


 Because it the easiest platform to install and get my hands on
 development tools. sudo apt-get install for the win!

 I use MacOS 10.8.5 64bit at work and have done lots of D development
 there too. The big downside is lack of a package manager for getting my
 hands on GCC/GDB/libs etc.. Homebrew[1] helps but is no match for apt.

 [1]: http://brew.sh/


 Quick question, Just got a Mac, currently setting it up.  You'd
 recommend Brew over the alternatives?  Sorry, rather new to developing
 with this OS...


 Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well behaved
 where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions.


Oh good, I came very close to installing macports yesterday.  Thanks!
Feb 05 2014
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 07:55 -0600, 1100110 wrote:

 On 2/5/14, 6:55, Gary Willoughby wrote:


[…]

 Yes use brew *not* macports. The reason is brew is more well behaved
 where it installs libs and doesn't need root permissions.


 
 Oh good, I came very close to installing macports yesterday.  Thanks!


I started using MacPorts long before Brew existed. MacPorts has improved
massively over the last couple of years. If I was starting from scratch
I would probably install Brew, but now I'm a MacPort user I'll probably
stick. Brew refuses to install on a MacPort using machine, and there
seems no way of telling Brew to install it's version of everything there
was in a MacPort installation. AFAIK anyway.

For packagers I would say targetting an installer, MacPorts and Brew for
OSX is like doing a tarball, deb and rpm for Linux. 

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
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
Feb 05 2014
parent "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
The problem I've had with MacPorts is that a bunch of ports are
just broken (meld, for instance).  I've had a lot more success
getting apps I pick to actually run when obtained via Homebrew.

As for OS... I used to target Solaris.  Linux isn't perfect, but
at least it isn't that pile of junk.
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "fra" <a b.it> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux 64 bit. I also have win8 on my laptop and Win7 on an older 
PC, and sometimes I do use them. If it was for me, 32 bit support 
and WinXP support could be dropped at any time :P
Why 64 bit: 32 is sort of old, and 2 GB on scientific computing 
doesn't cut it
Why linux: because it's made by developers for developers. You 
can feel the difference when it comes to tools and managing the 
software.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


I develop 64 bit apps on Linux exclusively. High volume 
distributed server code for the most part.  Which I guess these 
days you'd call cloud services.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:


 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


Linux 64 bit.


 And why?


Why not? :)
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 2/4/2014 11:18 AM, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


My *main* development is done on a Win7 64-bit machine (even though I 
absolutely *hate* all versions of windows post-XP). This is because 
Linux still doesn't quite meet all of my needs, even though I've been 
itching to switch.

I usually target 32-bit though, partly because of inertia and partly 
because I don't want to deal with getting DMD connected up and working 
with the MSVC linker. I can never remember how to and last time I tried 
I failed (I think my MS toolchain actually ate itself without anything 
even touching it).

I also do development on Linux though, partly because I try to be 
cross-platform, and also because my server is Linux (the only sensible 
choice for a remote server IMO). But my Linux dev is usually on a 32-bit 

virtualization (which Intel has deemed to be unworthy for anyone not 
willing to shell out $$$$$ for high-end hardware), so I can't run 64-bit 
VMs.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:18:24 -0800, Steve Teale  
<steve.teale britseyeview.com> wrote:


 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and  
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


I use Windows 8.1 x64 and write apps exclusively for x64.

I use Windows primarily because it's what I know best and it has  
capabilities I haven't found on Linux yet.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Idan Arye" <GenericNPC gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


At work I develop on Win7, because my company is a Microsoft 
groupie.

My personal machine runs Arch Linux, but I have very little time 
to hack on it(and when I do, it's usually Vim plugins)

Both are 64bit
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chris Williams" <yoreanon-chrisw yahoo.co.jp> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


64-bit Linux

I did work on Windows until I started using Git. I'm sure Git 
works passably on Windows, but I know that life is better for 
everyone in the world if you set up your repository on a *nix 
machine, because the default for your files will have \n line 
endings and your folder structure will have to support 
case-sensitive file names.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "ed" <growlercab gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


OS: linux x64, freebsd x64.
Why: Both are superior to most other OSs, available either free 
or $$$.

Cheers,
ed
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


There has been polls in the past, I believe Linux dominates (not 
sure if there were questions about 64bit).

Linux amd64 is my main desktop, so it is also my main platform 
for hobby projects.

At work we run we have Windows, I end up writing for 32 bit there 
because I haven't had good luck with hobby projects moving to 
64bit windows.

Why is linux my main desktop? I'll provide one example. I have 3 
desktops right now. Two have different programming project items, 
and then there is this one with Steam, hulu and other 
entertainment items. Linux Rox.
Feb 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only.


 And why?


Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
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
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:04 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 
 I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only.
 

 And why?


 
 Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory.


That answers the why 64-bit. Why Linux? because FreeBSD and OpenBSD
don't have traction, Windows is simply unacceptable, and I do use OSX a
bit (so I guess I do use a form of FreeBSD).

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
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
Feb 05 2014
parent "Asman01" <jckj33 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 12:07:38 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:

 On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:04 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:18 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


 
 I am on Linux mainly. 64-bit only.
 

 And why?


 
 Because I have 8 or 12GB of main memory.


 That answers the why 64-bit. Why Linux? because FreeBSD and 
 OpenBSD
 don't have traction, Windows is simply unacceptable, and I do 
 use OSX a
 bit (so I guess I do use a form of FreeBSD).


I think that the only difference from OSX to *BSD is the GUI 
(I've hear that). But *BSD still are very good and can run any 
OSX/Linux application as native. I'm fine with that.
Feb 07 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 5 February 2014 02:18, Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> wrote:


 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Windows x64 here. Because the x64 DMD can link against the MS libs, which
are the de facto standard in windows.
Win32 is only useful if you write stand-alone D apps which link no libs.
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 2/4/14, 10:18, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


I vastly prefer Linux over anything else for development, and the vast 
majority of linux distros are 64bit by default.

Although I just bought a macbook pro, so I'll either use a virtual 
machine, or figure out how to still be productive on OSX.   I'll 
probably end up using ssh into a VM...
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


64-bit Windows 8.1 and some minimal OS X 10.9 stuff.

offtopic:
after reading this thread it is become obvious why there are 
still no proper shared lib implementation for Windows and why OS 
X version is even further behind...
Feb 05 2014
parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 5 February 2014 22:36, evilrat <evilrat666 gmail.com> wrote:


 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:


 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some sort, and
 what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


 64-bit Windows 8.1 and some minimal OS X 10.9 stuff.

 offtopic:
 after reading this thread it is become obvious why there are still no
 proper shared lib implementation for Windows and why OS X version is even
 further behind...


Welcome to the world's most populous by severely under-represented club ;)
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig+dforum outerproduct.org> writes:
- about 55% Windows 8.1/64 (but development mostly using DMD/32, except 
for cases where the MS linker is needed)
- about 40%  Linux Mint/64
- the rest on Mac/64 and rarely FreeBSD/64

I'm most used to Windows and still have a few applications (graphics) 
that only run there + also develop GUI applications that need to be 
tested there constantly, but the main reason development-wise is still 
quick access to the VisualStudio debugger.

However, Cinnamon looks really nice and I'm considering switching back 
to mostly Linux. Working on Mac OS just never felt quite as efficient as 
on the other systems, mostly due to the awkward keyboard layout and key 
combinations required there.

64-bit OS... mostly to make full use of the system RAM and the CPU and 
because the memory overhead doesn't really matter.
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 16:18:24 Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?


64-bit Linux (currently on OpenSuSE, though I was on Arch for quite a while)


 And why?


Because that's what my desktop is and the environment that I prefer to have 
for my computer in general (with KDE). 32-bit should just die at this point 
IMHO (though it'll probably be a while before that happens), and I only deal 
with Windows if I have to and have no interest in anything from Apple, so I'm 
not going to be on either Windows or Mac OS X. Out of the supported 
environments, that only leaves FreeBSD, and while I could presumably get that 
pretty close to what I'm used to on Linux, I also see no point in messing with 
it over Linux other than to mess with it for the fun of it. So, I'm on 64-bit 
Linux almost all the time, including for anything I do with D.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 05 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:18:24 +0000
schrieb "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com>:


 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?
 
 And why?


Linux 64-bit.

The reason for 64-bit is simple. It means less pressure on the
address space (e.g. no more running out of virtual memory),
more CPU registers, more recent instructions (SSE3 is supported
on all amd64 CPUs) as well as reworked calling conventions.
In other words: All the good stuff.

I don't quite remember my reason for Linux back then.
But it probably comes down to those:

o finding out why Linux was becoming more and more popular
o trying and learning something new and getting past the routine
  of just installing the latest version of Windows every 2 years
o having a configurable system with only the background
  services I need and know about

Now I could add:

o very low virus threat
o my current system came only with a 32-bit Vista, but on Linux
  I could leverage the 64-bit potential of my CPU
o the joy of witnessing how the desktop experience and drivers
  become improved over time on Linux (automatic input device
  discovery, audio equalizers, video thumbnails, etc.)
o the ease of getting GDC or LDC running, because LLVM and GCC
  are part of most Linux distributions
o D and most *nix systems share their preference for UTF-8,
  whereas on Windows you have to be more aware of code pages
  unless an API is wchar based. That ranges from
  stdout.writeln to APIs like OpenAL.

-- 
Marco
Feb 07 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. 
What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not 
noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to 
make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world 
computer users?
Feb 09 2014
next sibling parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 18:16:09 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


 OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. 
 What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but 
 not noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross 
 compilation to make applications that are usable by the vast 
 proportion of world computer users?


64 bit is pretty ubiquitous in the laptop/desktop/server/cluster 
world*. The extra registers is occasionally important, as is the 
guarantee of SSE2.

Memory is dirt cheap these days, so that really isn't a problem. 
The larger address space is important for security reasons, as 
well as the obvious ease of use of more RAM in a single process.

*and if you're straying out of that world then cross compilation 
is standard anyway.
Feb 09 2014
parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:21:08 UTC, John Colvin wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 18:16:09 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


 OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear 
 about. What's the attraction about a system that's a memory 
 hog, but not noticeably quicker, and where you have to do 
 cross compilation to make applications that are usable by the 
 vast proportion of world computer users?


 64 bit is pretty ubiquitous in the 
 laptop/desktop/server/cluster world*. The extra registers is 
 occasionally important, as is the guarantee of SSE2.

 Memory is dirt cheap these days, so that really isn't a 
 problem. The larger address space is important for security 
 reasons, as well as the obvious ease of use of more RAM in a 
 single process.

 *and if you're straying out of that world then cross 
 compilation is standard anyway.


Just to clarify, of course I am talking from an x86-centric
viewpoint.
Feb 09 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 18:16 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:
[…]

 OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. 
 What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not 
 noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to 
 make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world 
 computer users?


I do not understand the "memory hog" gibe, but yes 32-bit, 64-bit is not
a speed thing. Everyone I know who uses a computer always has 8GB or
more of memory, so 32-bit OS is not an option. I guess the vast
proportion of world computer users are now phone and tablet users so yes
can probably survive with a mere 32-bit OS.

Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building
both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, so I don't see "cross compilation" as
an issue. A far bigger issue is how the $$$$ can you support all the
variants of Windows, OSX, Linux, etc. without a CI/build farm. This is
why we like the JVM ;-)

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
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
Feb 09 2014
parent reply "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all


 building
 both 32-bit and 64-bit versions


Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute?
Feb 12 2014
parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 17:01:26 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all


 building
 both 32-bit and 64-bit versions


 Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute?


just imagine a pensioner compiling chrome(or other big project) 
for all OS'es on one box all at once...
Feb 12 2014
parent "Abdulhaq" <alynch4047 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 06:19:41 UTC, evilrat wrote:

 On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 17:01:26 UTC, Steve Teale 
 wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 19:58:48 UTC, Russel Winder 
 wrote:

 Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all


 building
 both 32-bit and 64-bit versions


 Pensioner, limited budget, want to contribute?


 just imagine a pensioner compiling chrome(or other big project) 
 for all OS'es on one box all at once...


I would take my hat off to that pensioner! (If I had one)
Feb 13 2014
prev sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 18:16:08 Steve Teale wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.
 
 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?
 
 And why?


 
 OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about.
 What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not
 noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to
 make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world
 computer users?


Cross compilation? If you're building on Linux, and you're developing 
software, you're either just distributing source (and thus not building it for 
_anyone_), or you're building it for several distros, which means worrying 
about deb and rpm and all that nonsense. Cross-compilation is trivial in 
comparison. Or do you mean having to cross compile for Windows? If you need to 
build something for Windows, then you build something for Windows - probably 
on a Windows machine. But why should I suffer through using Windows as my 
normal machine just because the majority of users do?

But really, most of the time, I don't care what other people might be using. I 
use my desktop for everything, not just development, so what target I might be 
creating software some portion of my time is pretty irrelevant. If I needed to 
be creating Windows software and couldn't develop it cross-platform enough to 
do it on Linux, I'd just switch to a Windows box to do that work and live in 
Linux the rest of the time. Fortunately, for work, what I do is cross-platform 
enough, and several of our products are on Linux, such that most of the time 
I'm in Linux, but I do sometimes have to use a Windows box to develop software 
at work. At home though, I rarely have any reason to touch Windows.

As for 64-bit, I couldn't possibly live in 32-bit land at this point. I always 
have dozens of Windows open across several virtual desktops on my home machine 
such that even if all of the programs had relatively small memory footprints, 
I'd eat through memory. At this particular moment, I'm using about 21.6 out of 
64GB of memory on my machine, and most of the running applications use less 
than 100MB of memory - only 9 are using more than 200MB. Memory usage adds up 
_fast_ when have a lot of applications open, even without any memory hogs. But 
I'd also prefer to be able run programs that are memory hogs when I need to, 
so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being as cheap as it 
is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the box as it can 
hold). And actually, with 64GB, for the first time in years, I don't have 
memory problems (my last computer had only 16GB), and it's great. I rarely use 
anywhere near 32GB, so 32 would probably be enough, but I'd much rather have 
64 and not worry about it at all.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother with 32-bit these days except 
maybe for mobile, where a lot of ARM chips are 32-bit. x86 chips have all been 
64-bit for years now. If you're using 32-bit, you're just restricting yourself 
on how much memory you can use to little benefit as far as I can see. Even if 
all of the applications that you're running or building are 32-bit, you're 
still better off having the OS be in 64-bit. And you get more memory out of 
the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish that everything 
would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry about 32-bit 
anymore.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 09 2014
next sibling parent reply "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being 
 as cheap as it
 is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the 
 box as it can


Jonathan, you live in a different world. Memory is not cheap 
everywhere - maybe not even available, and not everyone - 
probably a minority in fact in world terms, has a recent 
processor, or even enough memory slots.
Feb 10 2014
parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 18:21:02 Steve Teale wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
 
 wrote:

 so it's nice to have a lot of overhead (and with memory being
 as cheap as it
 is, I don't see much reason not to put as much memory in the
 box as it can


 
 Jonathan, you live in a different world. Memory is not cheap
 everywhere - maybe not even available, and not everyone -
 probably a minority in fact in world terms, has a recent
 processor, or even enough memory slots.


For a desktop? It's trivial to get a lot of memory into one of those. Laptops 
would be more limiting, but even there, I'd expect 4GB to be on the low side 
at this point, and that's already more than 32-bit machines can address. And 
it's been 5+ years since I even had as little as 8GB in a machine, so I'd 
expect most desktops and laptops at this point to have enough memory that it 
couldn't all be addressed with 32 bits (stuff like mobile and embedded are 
clearly a different world though). And I'd certainly expect a developer to 
normally have a machine with at least 4GB.

I definitely do use a lot more memory than most people do though - in part 
because I tend to leave everything open all the time. And I typically have a 
machine that's no more than 2 or 3 years old with hardware which was on the 
higher end of things when I bought it. Folks who don't upgrade as often would 
be more on the 4GB side of things rather than in the 64GB range, but it's been 
a numbers of years since 4GB was a lot, so I would have thought that having at 
least that much would be pretty common at this point.

Regardless, it's been quite a few years since any desktop or laptop chips were 
32-bit, so I don't see any reason to run a 32-bit OS unless your unlucky 
enough to have a 32-bit version of Windows, and IMHO, it really hasn't made a 
lot of sense to run a 32-bit version of Windows since Vista was released 
(though 64-bit XP was a joke, so prior to Vista, it would have made sense to 
be running a 32-bit OS).

But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that you have a very 
different world-view than I do with regards to computers.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 13 2014
next sibling parent 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 2/13/14, 18:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Monday, February 10, 2014 18:21:02 Steve Teale wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis




[snip]


 For a desktop? It's trivial to get a lot of memory into one of those. Laptops
 would be more limiting, but even there, I'd expect 4GB to be on the low side
 at this point,


For *new* machines yes.  But 2 and even 1 are still common.
Feb 13 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that 
 you have a very
 different world-view than I do with regards to computers.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist.

I certainly do have a different world view. I live in Africa 
where most of what you can get is probably old stock that got 
dumped here. Of the last 3 2G memory cards I bought, 2 were duff, 
and that's at $50 apiece, and little chance of getting your money 
back.

Even when I got two that worked, my motherboard could only 
support 3 of the 4G, even though the processor is quite capable.

We're stuck with 32 bit for a long time here, and telling us to 
get into the 21st century doesn't help much.

Steve
Feb 14 2014
next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 17:50:57 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist.


Programming world is naturally elitist. There is nothing just 
about it. Problem to solve is making more modern h/w available 
for interested souls, not reverting to write 32-bit programs.
Feb 14 2014
parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 19:29:28 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Programming world is naturally elitist. There is nothing just 
 about it. Problem to solve is making more modern h/w available 
 for interested souls, not reverting to write 32-bit programs.


There's no software solution to hardware problems.

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 at 07:04:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 Windows. And it would
 be nice if we could get to the point where everyone is on 
 64-bit OSes so that
 we can stop worrying about about supporting 32-bit software 
 outside of
 emulators or virtual machines.


Virtualization is a good use case for 32-bit: you can run many 
guest oses on one machine and ensure their 32-bit software 
doesn't consume lots of memory just because it's 32-bit.
Feb 15 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, February 14, 2014 17:50:56 Steve Teale wrote:

 On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
 
 wrote:

 But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that
 you have a very
 different world-view than I do with regards to computers.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist.
 
 I certainly do have a different world view. I live in Africa
 where most of what you can get is probably old stock that got
 dumped here. Of the last 3 2G memory cards I bought, 2 were duff,
 and that's at $50 apiece, and little chance of getting your money
 back.
 
 Even when I got two that worked, my motherboard could only
 support 3 of the 4G, even though the processor is quite capable.
 
 We're stuck with 32 bit for a long time here, and telling us to
 get into the 21st century doesn't help much.


I was merely indicating what my expectations were based on what I know and 
have seen, not trying to insist that anyone who didn't match them needed to 
get a new computer or anything like that. And from the sounds of it, you're 
stuck with hardware that's nearly a decade old, which is not the sort of 
hardware that I'd expect a software developer to have. So, if anything, I feel 
sorry for you. I'm certainly not trying to look down on you.

But it doesn't really change my take on 32-bit vs 64-bit. I still wouldn't use 
a 32-bit OS unless I had no other choice, and it is only a matter of time 
until 32-bit is essentially dead - especially outside of Windows. And it would 
be nice if we could get to the point where everyone is on 64-bit OSes so that 
we can stop worrying about about supporting 32-bit software outside of 
emulators or virtual machines. But regardless of the situation in the third 
world, as long as Microsoft continues to sell 32-bit versions of Windows, 
we're still going to have at least some 32-bit software.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 14 2014
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 2/14/2014 12:50 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that you have
 a very
 different world-view than I do with regards to computers.


 Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist.


[...]

 and telling us to get into the 21st century doesn't help much.


He never said that or anything amounting to it. For god's sake, in the 
very sentence of his you quoted, and then complained about, he flat-out 
agreed to disagree. We don't need to be twisting each other's words into 
insults that were clearly never said nor intended.

But that said though, like Dicebot indicated, there ARE a *LOT* of 
elitist consumer whores out there in the software world (I'm saying "out 
there" while pointing directly *away* from this NG and any of its 
members, and I genuinely mean that: I'm not just saying "not the people 
here" merely to be civil).

It's easily one of my biggest pet peeves about the industry. Ever since 
computing finally shed its [equally inexcusable] "dork" image, computing 
has turned into a goddamn fashion industry. And that attracts the living 
tools of the world like nothing else. Depressing and infuriating, and 
worth fighting against, but still true :(
Feb 14 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 And you get more memory out of
 the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish 
 that everything
 would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry 
 about 32-bit
 anymore.


What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM?

The fact is cheap configurations became available for a wider 
userbase with smaller income, who wouldn't think to buy a 
notebook not so long ago. And you sure can't persuade them to 
spend more money, 32-bit OS works and once installed it will run 
long (you don't upgrade notebooks), as long as it works, there's 
no reason to fix it.
Feb 12 2014
next sibling parent "Tove" <tove fransson.se> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 20:23:55 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:

 And you get more memory out of
 the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish 
 that everything
 would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry 
 about 32-bit
 anymore.


 What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM?


x32 is the "obvious" solution, best of both worlds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
... I really wonder why it has not yet gone mainstream.
Feb 12 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 20:23:53 Kagamin wrote:

 On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 21:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
 
 wrote:

 And you get more memory out of
 the deal even if you have as little as 4GB in the box. I wish
 that everything
 would move to 64-bit so that we wouldn't have to even worry
 about 32-bit
 anymore.


 
 What's the advantage of having 64-bit OS on 4gb RAM?


Being able to actually use all of it. IIRC, the most that you can actually use 
with a 32-bit OS is more like 3.6GB.


 The fact is cheap configurations became available for a wider
 userbase with smaller income, who wouldn't think to buy a
 notebook not so long ago. And you sure can't persuade them to
 spend more money, 32-bit OS works and once installed it will run
 long (you don't upgrade notebooks), as long as it works, there's
 no reason to fix it.


Except that there's no reason to put a 32-bit OS on the machine in the first 
place. Sure, most folks will use whatever OS was on the box, and for some 
reason, Microsoft continues to sell 32-bit versions of its OS, but AFAIK, 
there's no real advantage to running a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor - only 
disadvantages. Maybe there's a good reason for it that I'm not aware of, but 
as far as I can see, there's no reason for Microsoft to even be selling a 32-
bit version of their OS anymore, since 32-bit programs will run on the 64-bit 
version, and 32-bit x86 chips aren't produced anymore. They've all been 64-bit 
for years now. So, even if someone has a lower end machine that has less than 
4GB, I see no reason to run a 32-bit OS on it. And I would have thought that 
4GB would be pretty low end at this point anyway.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 13 2014
next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 2/13/2014 7:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 as far as I can see, there's no reason for Microsoft to even be selling a 32-
 bit version of their OS anymore, since 32-bit programs will run on the 64-bit
 version, and 32-bit x86 chips aren't produced anymore. They've all been 64-bit
 for years now. So, even if someone has a lower end machine that has less than
 4GB, I see no reason to run a 32-bit OS on it.


Last I heard, Intel still manufactures a metric shit-ton of chips that 
deliberately lack hardware virtualization (my machine's not even a 
couple years old and it uses one of those chips). So running VMed 
Windows (VirtualBox, etc) would be impossible on those machines without 
a 32-bit Windows.
Feb 13 2014
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:20:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 4GB would be pretty low end at this point anyway.


http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/Notebook/F3F15UA!23ABA
Feb 15 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Abdulhaq" <alynch4047 gmail.com> writes:
Linux AMD64.

Windows 64bit Vista and onwards are now OK IMO but I've been a 
linux user for a very long time now. As a scarred ex-Windows 3.0 
user I still compulsively ctrl-S after every sentence typed.

I have real concerns that Android/Java has gained huge momentum, 
Java is bearable but I'd far rather be using D.
Feb 11 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Andrea Fontana" <nospam example.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux 64bit here.

Why should I use a 32bit system? Currently I see only 
disadvantages. Linux is easier and more confortable to develop. 
And our servers use linux too (so software must run on linux).
Feb 11 2014
parent "Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 13:56:41 UTC, Andrea Fontana 
wrote:

 On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


 Linux 64bit here.

 Why should I use a 32bit system? Currently I see only 
 disadvantages. Linux is easier and more confortable to develop. 
 And our servers use linux too (so software must run on linux).


     Development:
Linux 64bit & 32bit

     Applications:
Windows
Mac OS X
(includes a certain amount of development on these platforms too, 
but mainly concerns system integration)
Feb 12 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "terchestor" <terchestor gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


Linux x64 (OpenSuse 13.1): powerful and versatile environment.
Feb 12 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Mengu" <mengukagan gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?



I have an 64-bit Mac OS X Mountain Lion.
Feb 13 2014
prev sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?IlRow6lv?= Bueno" <munrek gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 16:18:24 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

 Popped into my head today.

 What proportion of the D community develops on Linux of some 
 sort, and what proportion works with a 64 bit OS?

 And why?


You should start a poll somewhere to have a proportion, because
only linux-users are replying.

I am using ArchLinux 64 bits ( i3, 4 gB ).
Feb 14 2014