www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - dmd 1.043 alpha for FreeBSD 7.1

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip

The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be done.
Apr 06 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Yay!

But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit platforms?
Apr 06 2009
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from grauzone (none example.net)'s article

 Yay!
 But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit platforms?


I assume a 64-bit port would be significantly harder than the Mac or FreeBSD
ports
because it would require writing a whole new codegen, or at least heavily
modifying the existing one.
Apr 06 2009
parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:20 AM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from grauzone (none example.net)'s article

 Yay!
 But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit platforms?


 I assume a 64-bit port would be significantly harder than the Mac or FreeBSD
ports
 because it would require writing a whole new codegen, or at least heavily
 modifying the existing one.


Or - cough, cough - using a different backend.

Which has already been done.

Twice.
Apr 06 2009
prev sibling parent reply Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:07:38 +0200
grauzone <none example.net> wrote:


 Yay!
 
 But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit
 platforms?


I use 64 bit freebsd too but thanks anyway.
Apr 06 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tim Matthews wrote:

 I use 64 bit freebsd too but thanks anyway.


I suspect most FreeBSD users are using 64 bits.
Apr 07 2009
parent reply Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:53:35 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 

 I suspect most FreeBSD users are using 64 bits.


There is a lot using 32bit if they need hardware accelerated nvidia
graphics but yes the majority is probably using 64 bit.

I tried compiling tango yesterday (with 'make runtime' from the ldc
directory) and it would fail even after I'd applied all the not yet
commited patches. It may build other ways but have not yet tried.

Is there any known issues or not yet tested features of either dmd or
phobos 1 on freebsd?
Apr 07 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tim Matthews wrote:

 On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:53:35 -0700
 Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
  

 I suspect most FreeBSD users are using 64 bits.


 
 There is a lot using 32bit if they need hardware accelerated nvidia
 graphics but yes the majority is probably using 64 bit.
 
 I tried compiling tango yesterday (with 'make runtime' from the ldc
 directory) and it would fail even after I'd applied all the not yet
 commited patches. It may build other ways but have not yet tried.
 
 Is there any known issues or not yet tested features of either dmd or
 phobos 1 on freebsd?


No, there are no known issues. It passes the dmd test suite 100% as well 
as all the library unit tests. If you can isolate any of these down to 
dmd/phobos and post them to bugzilla, I would appreciate it as it will 
not only improve the FreeBSD port but will improve the test suite to aid 
in the rest of dmd development.
Apr 07 2009
parent Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:51:35 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 If you can isolate any of these
 down to dmd/phobos and post them to bugzilla, I would appreciate it
 as it will not only improve the FreeBSD port but will improve the
 test suite to aid in the rest of dmd development.


Sorry didn't say I'd found any but will keep a look out for them.
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip
 
 The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be 
 done.


awesome!
Apr 06 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Anders Bergh <anders1 gmail.com> writes:
Now that there's four platforms supported it would be quite nice with
separate archives for each. .tar.gz for Linux, FreeBSD and OS X...
.zip for Windows.

2009/4/6 Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com>:

 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip

 The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be done.




-- 
Anders Bergh
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent zxp <zxpmyth yahoo.com.cn> writes:
Walter Bright 写道:

 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip
 
 The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be 
 done.


That's great! Thanks, Sir!

Maybe it's because of the DMD is packed with zip. After unzipped, it 
must run

chmod +x dmd/freebsd/bin/dmd

to make dmd working.
Apr 09 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


Nice!

But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version identifiers 
already established by gdc and ldc?

freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 Nice!

 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version identifiers
 already established by gdc and ldc?

 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Apr 14 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


It seems somewhat arbitrary, but fair enough..
Apr 14 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 
 It seems somewhat arbitrary, but fair enough..


It's just one less thing to remember when switching between C and D.
Apr 14 2009
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 It seems somewhat arbitrary, but fair enough..


 It's just one less thing to remember when switching between C and D.


After reading more, I just can't help but feel this is wrong.

linux is still the only version identifier following this "logic".

Comparing http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html and D:

linux -> linux
_WIN32 -> Win32
_WIN64 -> Win64
__FreeBSD__ -> FreeBSD
__APPLE__ or __MACH__ -> OSX

Even if you strip underscores, OSX and Win32/64 still don't match
C/C++ identifiers. Why should linux be special?

I realise this is a minor thing probably not worth the time it gets,
but D seems to have a tendency to throw in inconsistencies in every
crack there is to find ...
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 After reading more, I just can't help but feel this is wrong.
 
 linux is still the only version identifier following this "logic".
 
 Comparing http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html and D:
 
 linux -> linux
 _WIN32 -> Win32
 _WIN64 -> Win64


Microsoft predefines _WIN32 for Windows 64, too!
D:
    Windows: All members of the Windows family
    Win32: specific to Windows 32
    Win64: specific to Windows 64
That seems sensible to me.


 __FreeBSD__ -> FreeBSD


The __ are ugly but necessary because of the C standard, but they are 
ugly and *unnecessary* for D.


 __APPLE__ or __MACH__ -> OSX


Apple has made many operating systems besides OSX, so __APPLE__ is out. 
I can't even remember which OS Mach is.


 Even if you strip underscores, OSX and Win32/64 still don't match
 C/C++ identifiers. Why should linux be special?


Because the gcc macro suits the need perfectly. The others don't.


 I realise this is a minor thing probably not worth the time it gets,
 but D seems to have a tendency to throw in inconsistencies in every
 crack there is to find ...


If gcc had any consistency, I'd use that. But it doesn't. It makes sense 
to use gcc's precedent when gcc makes sense, and to diverge when gcc 
does not make sense.
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 After reading more, I just can't help but feel this is wrong.

 linux is still the only version identifier following this "logic".

 Comparing http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html and D:

 linux -> linux
 _WIN32 -> Win32
 _WIN64 -> Win64


 Microsoft predefines _WIN32 for Windows 64, too!
 D:
 =C2=A0 Windows: All members of the Windows family
 =C2=A0 Win32: specific to Windows 32
 =C2=A0 Win64: specific to Windows 64
 That seems sensible to me.


Agreed!


 __FreeBSD__ -> FreeBSD


 The __ are ugly but necessary because of the C standard, but they are ugl=


y

 and *unnecessary* for D.


Agreed!


 __APPLE__ or __MACH__ -> OSX


 Apple has made many operating systems besides OSX, so __APPLE__ is out. I
 can't even remember which OS Mach is.


According to the site I linked __MACH__ and __APPLE__ are both for
OSX, I guess that might be wrong, I've never really had to code for
OSX.
Still Apple call it "Mac OS X" so one could argue that "MacOSX" is a
better identifier.


 Even if you strip underscores, OSX and Win32/64 still don't match
 C/C++ identifiers. Why should linux be special?


 Because the gcc macro suits the need perfectly. The others don't.


I simply don't agree here. To me, linux (as opposed to Linux) is a
special case that I need to remember, the others follow a pattern.


 I realise this is a minor thing probably not worth the time it gets,
 but D seems to have a tendency to throw in inconsistencies in every
 crack there is to find ...


 If gcc had any consistency, I'd use that. But it doesn't. It makes sense =


to

 use gcc's precedent when gcc makes sense, and to diverge when gcc does no=


t

 make sense.


Maybe it makes sense to you. Not to me.
Apr 14 2009
parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 15 de abril a las 02:26 me escribiste:

 Even if you strip underscores, OSX and Win32/64 still don't match
 C/C++ identifiers. Why should linux be special?


 Because the gcc macro suits the need perfectly. The others don't.


 
 I simply don't agree here. To me, linux (as opposed to Linux) is a
 special case that I need to remember, the others follow a pattern.
 

 I realise this is a minor thing probably not worth the time it gets,
 but D seems to have a tendency to throw in inconsistencies in every
 crack there is to find ...


 If gcc had any consistency, I'd use that. But it doesn't. It makes sense to
 use gcc's precedent when gcc makes sense, and to diverge when gcc does not
 make sense.


 
 Maybe it makes sense to you. Not to me.


I agree. I think it should be all CamelCase or all lowercase. I prefer the
later because there are situations where CamelCase are not completely
intuitive. For example: Osx or OSX?

linux
freebsd
macosx
windows
win32
win64

Looks fine to me.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-04-14 20:19:29 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:


 __APPLE__ or __MACH__ -> OSX


 
 Apple has made many operating systems besides OSX, so __APPLE__ is out. 
 I can't even remember which OS Mach is.


It's defined(___APPLE__) && defined(__MACH__) that is used (not "or"). 
Read it as "An Apple OS running the Mach kernel". Although to be 
presise, the kernel is XNU, which uses Mach at its core.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU>

So... perhaps the version identifier should be "AppleMach". :-)

No, seriously, OSX is fine by me.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 15 de abril a las 01:45 me escribiste:

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 It seems somewhat arbitrary, but fair enough..


 It's just one less thing to remember when switching between C and D.


 
 After reading more, I just can't help but feel this is wrong.
 
 linux is still the only version identifier following this "logic".
 
 Comparing http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html and D:
 
 linux -> linux


This is only true when no -std=xxx (where xxx is an standard version
withou GCC extensions) is specified.
__linux__ (or __linux) is always defined.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 
 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


I wouldn't consider this consistent, some version identifiers are named 
    after how it's written in the literature and some after what gcc 
predefines.
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 
 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


Why not define both variants?
Apr 14 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 
 Why not define both variants?


Pointless clutter, and the inevitable time-wasting "which one should I use?"
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply cemiller <chris dprogramming.com> writes:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:49:02 -0700, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".



How about just making version and debug identifiers case-insensitive?  
Aren't they already in their own special namespace; they're special-case  
(pun intended).
Apr 14 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
cemiller wrote:

 How about just making version and debug identifiers case-insensitive? 
 Aren't they already in their own special namespace; they're special-case 
 (pun intended).


Because then I have to explain why some identifiers are case sensitive 
and some or not for the next few decades. <g>
Apr 14 2009
parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 cemiller wrote:

 How about just making version and debug identifiers case-insensitive?
 Aren't they already in their own special namespace; they're
 special-case (pun intended).


 
 Because then I have to explain why some identifiers are case sensitive
 and some or not for the next few decades. <g>


Currently, you'll have to explain why one identifier is lowercase while
the others are mixed case for the next few decades.

I thought one of the big strengths of D was dropping compatibility where
it made sense and improved things.  No one is going to be copy+pasting C
code into D complete with #ifdef's and expecting it to work.

Aside from that, which of the following is easier to explain to programmers?

"Platform version identifiers are mixed case and named for the consumer
name of the platform.  API version identifiers follow the same rule."

"Platform version identifiers may be any case and are sometimes named
after the identifier used in that platform's C compiler, possibly
changed to remove underscores, unless we didn't like that identifier in
which case we might be using another one.  This made up one could be the
name of the platform, the name of the OS, or something else."

  -- Daniel
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:49:02 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


Just so you know this argument is flawed.  Although you are in your right  
to select the identifier, you have based it on invalid logic.

First, nobody can directly compile C code under D, especially with  
preprocessor logic.  So right there, you already must change the code.

Now, since you must change the code (and most places that are cross  
platform don't have simple #ifdef __linux, so global search/replace is no  
good), you have plenty of opportunity to change the identifier from  
__linux or linux to Linux.

Next, you are inconsistent with other platforms.  Windows Defines _WIN32,  
yet you use Win32, shouldn't you use WIN32 to be consistent with  
capitalization?  You are selectively applying reasoning to justify  
inconsistent naming techniques.

Just say "Because I'm Walter and I said so" and call it a day, or change  
it to the way it should be.  Take the identifier name from where you want,  
but make the capitalization consistent.  We have no legacy requirements  
here (read: D compiler does not have to compile C preprocessor code, I  
know there's lots of D code with version(linux) already, but now is the  
time to make a change, not later), and to make things not follow a  
consistent capitalization scheme makes it look like an error in the code.

version(FreeBSD) version=v1;
version(OSX) version=v2;
version(Win32) version=v3;
version(linux) version=v4; // huh?  oh, the author must have made a  
capitalization error.

If you need another reason, linux looks like 1inux in some fonts ;)

BTW, when I started writing D code for multi-platform, I instinctively  
used version(Linux), but found out that was wrong by trial and error.

-Steve
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:49:02 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
 GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...


 
 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


The way gcc does it looks like a historic legacy to me.
Ported code is ported - no reasonable programmer will just remove __
and go for it.
Let's focus on practical means and consistency.
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 
 Nice!
 
 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version identifiers 
 already established by gdc and ldc?
 
 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


FreeBSD is how it is normally written in the official FreeBSD 
literature, such as : http://www.freebsd.org/

Also, gcc on FreeBSD predefines __FreeBSD__

Clearly, FreeBSD is the term preferred by the FreeBSD community.

The Mac OSX documentation does not refer to it as darwin, it normally 
refers to it as OSX. You have to work hard to find any references to 
darwin on the Apple web site. Nevertheless, "darwin" is predefined for 
legacy compatibility on the Mac dmd compiler.

I was concerned that people would see "darwin" support and wonder what 
that is. OSX is an order of magnitude better known and associated with 
Apple. Macs are not called "darwins". I suspect we'd get real tired of 
saying "yes, darwin really means OSX."

(As an aside, back in the 80's the ubiquitous and famous Wordstar 
program was produced by Micropro. Nobody could ever remember the company 
name. After many years of people assuming that Wordstar was made by 
Wordstar Inc. and fruitlessly trying to find Wordstar Inc., Micropro 
finally wised up and changed their name to Wordstar Inc.

Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.)
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 Nice!

 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version 
 identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?

 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


 
 FreeBSD is how it is normally written in the official FreeBSD 
 literature, such as : http://www.freebsd.org/


If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and 
documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


 Also, gcc on FreeBSD predefines __FreeBSD__
 
 Clearly, FreeBSD is the term preferred by the FreeBSD community.
 
 The Mac OSX documentation does not refer to it as darwin, it normally 
 refers to it as OSX. You have to work hard to find any references to 
 darwin on the Apple web site. Nevertheless, "darwin" is predefined for 
 legacy compatibility on the Mac dmd compiler.


It depends on what documentation you read. 
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
In this documentation "Darwin" is all over the place.


 I was concerned that people would see "darwin" support and wonder what 
 that is. OSX is an order of magnitude better known and associated with 
 Apple. Macs are not called "darwins". I suspect we'd get real tired of 
 saying "yes, darwin really means OSX."
 
 (As an aside, back in the 80's the ubiquitous and famous Wordstar 
 program was produced by Micropro. Nobody could ever remember the company 
 name. After many years of people assuming that Wordstar was made by 
 Wordstar Inc. and fruitlessly trying to find Wordstar Inc., Micropro 
 finally wised up and changed their name to Wordstar Inc.
 
 Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.)
 


And can't we just have all the version identifiers in lowercase.
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:48:00 +0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 Nice!

 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version  
 identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?

 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


  FreeBSD is how it is normally written in the official FreeBSD  
 literature, such as : http://www.freebsd.org/


 If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and  
 documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


I also wonder why it is OSX. Are versions prior to MacOS 10 (which is marketed
as MacOS X) officially unsupported by D?
It's also funny to see that Walter officially deprecates something that he
didn't invent.

Not that I complain about something, it's just a bit strange...
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:


 I also wonder why it is OSX. Are versions prior to MacOS 10 (which is 
 marketed as MacOS X) officially unsupported by D?


All versions before Mac OS X 10.4 are "unsupported", even though
you can make Mac OS X 10.3 limp along with an older GDC version*.

Mac OS 9 is flat out, due to having the "wrong" processor (PPC)
and no recent GCC. Oh, and the fact that it is also quite dead.

--anders

* http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gdcmac/gdc-0.21-mac-10.3.dmg
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:

 On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:48:00 +0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 Nice!

 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version 
 identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?

 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


  FreeBSD is how it is normally written in the official FreeBSD 
 literature, such as : http://www.freebsd.org/


 If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and 
 documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


 
 I also wonder why it is OSX. Are versions prior to MacOS 10 (which is 
 marketed as MacOS X) officially unsupported by D?
 It's also funny to see that Walter officially deprecates something that 
 he didn't invent.
 
 Not that I complain about something, it's just a bit strange...
 


To my knowledge versions prior to MacOS 10 is not marketed as MacOS X. 
They're marketed as MacOS 9 (8 or what ever).
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 It depends on what documentation you read. 
 http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
 In this documentation "Darwin" is all over the place.


Move up a directory, and it's OSX, OSX, OSX.
Apr 14 2009
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 It depends on what documentation you read. 
 http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
 In this documentation "Darwin" is all over the place.


 
 Move up a directory, and it's OSX, OSX, OSX.


I can only seem to find "Mac OS X", not "OSX" ?

But the site _is_ divided into two OS sections,
Mac OS X and iPhone OS, both of which are "OSX".
(and also based on Darwin, e.g. what uname says)
For instance wxWidgets is also using it: wxOSX*.

* http://wiki.wxwidgets.org/Development:_wxMac
   with wxOSX_CARBON, wxOSX_COCOA, wxOSX_IPHONE

So I suppose one can use "OSX" instead of "darwin".

--anders
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and 
 documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined 
identifiers in gcc for guidance, and found just the unfortunately 
generic __APPLE__. I wish Apple would make up their mind what they 
wanted to call their OS.
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-04-14 17:56:51 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:


 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and 
 documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


 
 Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined 
 identifiers in gcc for guidance, and found just the unfortunately 
 generic __APPLE__. I wish Apple would make up their mind what they 
 wanted to call their OS.


To me it's clear that Darwin is the core on which Mac OS X and iPhone 
OS are based on. Mac OS X looks like a marketing name to me; I wouldn't 
be surprised if in a few years it gets renamed to Mac OS XI, or 
something else, because Mac OS X 10.10 would sound bad, just as would 
Mac OS X 11. Perhaps we'll see Mac OS 11, iOS or something; whatever 
the change, the "X" part will have to move out at some point.

I believe Darwin is a more stable identifier for the architecture than 
Mac OS X. But I also agree with Walter that it's probably not something 
a newbie to programming and/or the platform would expect. In the end, I 
think I'd choose Darwin because you want the identifier to represent 
the OS architecture, not all the higher-level features Apple has 
layered on top of it, and because most people interested in writing 
cross-patform code using Darwin/OSX-specific features will already know 
about Darwin.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Apr 14 2009
parent reply Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Michel Fortin
<michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote:


 To me it's clear that Darwin is the core on which Mac OS X and iPhone OS are
 based on. Mac OS X looks like a marketing name to me; I wouldn't be
 surprised if in a few years it gets renamed to Mac OS XI, or something else,
 because Mac OS X 10.10 would sound bad, just as would Mac OS X 11. Perhaps
 we'll see Mac OS 11, iOS or something; whatever the change, the "X" part
 will have to move out at some point.

 I believe Darwin is a more stable identifier for the architecture than Mac
 OS X.


Out of all the arguments put forth so far, I think this is the
strongest.  OSX is just the name of Apple's 10th Mac OS.  Why would we
have version(OSX), but not version(WinXP), version(WinVista),
version(LinuxUbuntuGutsy) etc. etc. etc.?
Apr 14 2009
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 To me it's clear that Darwin is the core on which Mac OS X and iPhone OS are
 based on. Mac OS X looks like a marketing name to me; I wouldn't be
 surprised if in a few years it gets renamed to Mac OS XI, or something else,
 because Mac OS X 10.10 would sound bad, just as would Mac OS X 11. Perhaps
 we'll see Mac OS 11, iOS or something; whatever the change, the "X" part
 will have to move out at some point.




It's also possible that "Mac OS X" stays in, while Darwin changes...

This already happened once before, to "Mac OS X Server" and Rhapsody.


 I believe Darwin is a more stable identifier for the architecture than Mac
 OS X.


 
 Out of all the arguments put forth so far, I think this is the
 strongest.  OSX is just the name of Apple's 10th Mac OS.  Why would we
 have version(OSX), but not version(WinXP), version(WinVista),
 version(LinuxUbuntuGutsy) etc. etc. etc.?


It would be more like version(NT), if you want to compare with Windows ?

GNU/Linux operating system versioning is a long sad story all by itself.

--anders
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Out of all the arguments put forth so far, I think this is the
 strongest.  OSX is just the name of Apple's 10th Mac OS.  Why would we
 have version(OSX), but not version(WinXP), version(WinVista),
 version(LinuxUbuntuGutsy) etc. etc. etc.?


Predicting what Apple (or anyone else) will name their next OS is a 
waste of time. They'll do what they do, and D will try to make an 
appropriate accommodation.

The reason why there is no WinXP is because people expect their windows 
apps to run on the gamut of windows versions, and if you're writing code 
dependent on a particular version of windows, you should do a runtime 
check for it (like is done in std.file). The same goes for Linux.

Apple's OSs, on the other hand, do not engender an expectation to work 
that way. The fact that if you compile a "hello world" program in C 
using the default switches on OSX 10.5 produces a "bus error" when run 
on 10.4 illustrates a very different world from what I'm used to. As 
Apple upgrades OSX, I don't know what to expect. We'll see.
Apr 15 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and 
 documentation shouldn't it be "MacOSX" then?


 
 Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined 
 identifiers in gcc for guidance, and found just the unfortunately 
 generic __APPLE__. I wish Apple would make up their mind what they 
 wanted to call their OS.


They call it "Mac OS", then they add a version like this: "Mac OS 9". 
Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix 
base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to 
reflect the new nix base, "X" is also ten using roman numerals) making 
it: "Mac OS X". They still call it "mac os ten" (though some people, 
including me, like to call it "mac os x" and pronounce the "x" as in the 
letter "x"). After the "x" they add a name to reflect the version i.e. 
"Leopard" for version 10.5. Sometimes they refer to the os version with 
the name and sometimes with the version number.
Apr 15 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 They call it "Mac OS", then they add a version like this: "Mac OS 9". 
 Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix 
 base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to 
 reflect the new nix base, "X" is also ten using roman numerals) making 
 it: "Mac OS X". They still call it "mac os ten" (though some people, 
 including me, like to call it "mac os x" and pronounce the "x" as in the 
 letter "x"). After the "x" they add a name to reflect the version i.e. 
 "Leopard" for version 10.5. Sometimes they refer to the os version with 
 the name and sometimes with the version number.


Apple calls it "Mac OS X version 10.5".

There is little consistency in how Apple names their OSs, so there is no 
way to come up with a version identifier for it that is completely 
consistent.
Apr 15 2009
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 They call it "Mac OS", then they add a version like this: "Mac OS 9". 
 Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix 
 base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to 
 reflect the new nix base, "X" is also ten using roman numerals) making 
 it: "Mac OS X". They still call it "mac os ten" (though some people, 
 including me, like to call it "mac os x" and pronounce the "x" as in 
 the letter "x"). After the "x" they add a name to reflect the version 
 i.e. "Leopard" for version 10.5. Sometimes they refer to the os 
 version with the name and sometimes with the version number.


 
 Apple calls it "Mac OS X version 10.5".
 
 There is little consistency in how Apple names their OSs, so there is no 
 way to come up with a version identifier for it that is completely 
 consistent.
 


About the "darwin" vs "OSX". There are other operating systems than Mac 
OS X that could use "darwin" as the version identifier if someone made a 
D compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and 
ipod thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for example.
Apr 16 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 About the "darwin" vs "OSX". There are other operating systems than Mac 
 OS X that could use "darwin" as the version identifier if someone made a 
 D compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and 
 ipod thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for example.


I wasn't aware of that. Would the OSX compiler and Phobos run out of the 
box on them?
Apr 16 2009
parent reply Anders Bergh <anders1 gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 19:32, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 About the "darwin" vs "OSX". There are other operating systems than Mac OS
 X that could use "darwin" as the version identifier if someone made a D
 compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and ipod
 thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for example.


 I wasn't aware of that. Would the OSX compiler and Phobos run out of the box
 on them?


You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
certainly not work there...

-- 
Anders Bergh
Apr 16 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Anders Bergh wrote:

 You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
 dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
 actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
 certainly not work there...


If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's 
appropriate to have a different version identifier.
Apr 16 2009
next sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,


 If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's
 appropriate to have a different version identifier.
 


I'd assert the test should be if the systems are source code compatible.
Apr 16 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Anders Bergh wrote:

 You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
 dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
 actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
 certainly not work there...


 
 If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's 
 appropriate to have a different version identifier.


So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux 
systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...


(I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)
Apr 16 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Anders Bergh wrote:

 You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
 dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
 actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
 certainly not work there...


 If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's 
 appropriate to have a different version identifier.


 
 So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux 
 systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...
 
 
 (I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)


I meant if they were running on an x86 yet the binaries are different.
Apr 16 2009
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Frits van Bommel wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Anders Bergh wrote:

 You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
 dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
 actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
 certainly not work there...


 If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's
 appropriate to have a different version identifier.


 So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux
 systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...


 (I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)


 I meant if they were running on an x86 yet the binaries are different.


Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?
Apr 17 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?


Such should get OSX predefined as well as whatever is appropriate to 
identify the powerpc (X86 is predefined for 32 bit x86, X86_64 for 64 
bit x86).
Apr 17 2009
parent Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?


 Such should get OSX predefined as well as whatever is appropriate to
 identify the powerpc (X86 is predefined for 32 bit x86, X86_64 for 64 bit
 x86).


I'm aware of this. I was more wondering what system/logic you're using
to decide these things... ! (sry, but it's a small - yet important
detail it seems)
Apr 17 2009
prev sibling parent Anders Bergh <anders1 gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:18, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Anders Bergh wrote:

 You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
 dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
 actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
 certainly not work there...


 If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's
 appropriate to have a different version identifier.


The current dmd binaries would run and work on PureDarwin as long as
they don't use Cocoa or Carbon etc (which I doubt they do).

-- 
Anders Bergh
Apr 16 2009
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 They call it "Mac OS", then they add a version like this: "Mac OS 9". 
 Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix 
 base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to 
 reflect the new nix base, "X" is also ten using roman numerals) making 
 it: "Mac OS X". They still call it "mac os ten" (though some people, 
 including me, like to call it "mac os x" and pronounce the "x" as in 
 the letter "x"). After the "x" they add a name to reflect the version 
 i.e. "Leopard" for version 10.5. Sometimes they refer to the os 
 version with the name and sometimes with the version number.


 
 Apple calls it "Mac OS X version 10.5".
 
 There is little consistency in how Apple names their OSs, so there is no 
 way to come up with a version identifier for it that is completely 
 consistent.


There's a good word for them. They're Good Marketers. Now, in an honest 
man's world that is equivalent with Good Liars. (The definition being, 
whenever a liar is good at achieving his goal, and at the same time 
avoiding accusations of lying, then he's a Good Liar. We had a 
discussion about this in Elementary School, on the school yard. Of 
course, the bigger boys won, but that didn't mean that the rest of us 
would forget it, ever.)

So, in anticipation of how "the world goes", all we need is a table 
lookup. Apple this or that, translates to this or that Version.
Apr 16 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.


In my collection (admittedly a small sample; 90 bands), only 6/13 
self-titled albums are first albums.
Apr 14 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.


 
 In my collection (admittedly a small sample; 90 bands), only 6/13 
 self-titled albums are first albums.


I salute you, sir, for actually doing some research on this important 
topic! <g>

Of course, the greatest band evar, Led Zeppelin, self-titled their first 
3 albums. Chicago self-titled practically every one of their albums, and 
is "second only to the Beach Boys as the most successful American rock 
band of all time, in terms of both albums and singles" according to Amazon.
Apr 14 2009
prev sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!


 
 Nice!
 
 But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version
 identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?
 
 freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX


 
 FreeBSD is how it is normally written in the official FreeBSD
 literature, such as : http://www.freebsd.org/
 
 Also, gcc on FreeBSD predefines __FreeBSD__
 
 Clearly, FreeBSD is the term preferred by the FreeBSD community.
 
 The Mac OSX documentation does not refer to it as darwin, it normally
 refers to it as OSX. You have to work hard to find any references to
 darwin on the Apple web site. Nevertheless, "darwin" is predefined for
 legacy compatibility on the Mac dmd compiler.
 
 I was concerned that people would see "darwin" support and wonder what
 that is. OSX is an order of magnitude better known and associated with
 Apple. Macs are not called "darwins". I suspect we'd get real tired of
 saying "yes, darwin really means OSX."
 
 (As an aside, back in the 80's the ubiquitous and famous Wordstar
 program was produced by Micropro. Nobody could ever remember the company
 name. After many years of people assuming that Wordstar was made by
 Wordstar Inc. and fruitlessly trying to find Wordstar Inc., Micropro
 finally wised up and changed their name to Wordstar Inc.
 
 Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.)


I don't mind your conventions if DMD had pioneered these platforms, but it 
did not.

FreeBSD breaks existing code, and so will OSX whenever darwin is removed. 
Now a developer already active on those platform is forced to somehow make 
sure both identifiers are in place until some unknown point in the future.

Since the version identifiers have been established in GDC a very long time 
ago, and they do follow an acceptable convention, I find it very unnecessary 
to change that.

As for the darwin vs OSX issue, what I heard is that darwin is technically 
the more correct one as it is with linux vs Ubuntu, Suse, etc.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Apr 15 2009
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 FreeBSD breaks existing code, and so will OSX whenever darwin is removed. 
 Now a developer already active on those platform is forced to somehow make 
 sure both identifiers are in place until some unknown point in the future.
 
 Since the version identifiers have been established in GDC a very long time 
 ago, and they do follow an acceptable convention, I find it very unnecessary 
 to change that.


One *could* argue the same thing about the introduced Posix identifier,
versus the already established Unix so I'm not sure it's entirelly fair
to bash DMD doing the same thing as Tango had already done before it...

http://www.prowiki.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Version (from 2005)

Back in the day it made sense to have the "Windows" and "Unix" versions,
and then the specific linux/darwin/freebsd/cygwin/solaris/skyos/etc OS.
If starting over, then I suppose Posix and OSX and FreeBSD "work" too.

--anders
Apr 15 2009
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund Wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 FreeBSD breaks existing code, and so will OSX whenever darwin is removed. 
 Now a developer already active on those platform is forced to somehow make 
 sure both identifiers are in place until some unknown point in the future.
 
 Since the version identifiers have been established in GDC a very long time 
 ago, and they do follow an acceptable convention, I find it very unnecessary 
 to change that.


 
 One *could* argue the same thing about the introduced Posix identifier,
 versus the already established Unix so I'm not sure it's entirelly fair
 to bash DMD doing the same thing as Tango had already done before it...


That is a fair question to bring up, although I never got the impression that
Unix was well established (except possibly from you :) ). It was also a feeling
back then that Unix probably didn't describe the features as well as Posix did
(an established standard followed by a wider range of systems than the older
unix standards, and some of those really not wanting to be Unices).

Maybe there is also a difference between the time between 2005 and 6 and 2006
and 2009, but in the end it comes down to whether it makes sense to change the
colour of this bikeshed (the Unix shed was larger and more visible and I claim
it was worth the change); I don't think this change is worth it.

Lars Ivar
Apr 16 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jordan Miner <jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.

D is a chance to fix stuff wrong or inconsistent in other languages. C
compilers may use inconsistent naming like __APPLE__, __MACH__, __linux,
_WIN32, _WIN64, __FreeBSD__, etc. Why not take the opportunity to fix the
inconsistency in addition to all the other improvements D has?

The argument that it should be linux because of gcc does not apply to those who
come from other languages. If someone is learning D after only knowing Java or

don't care how gcc does it. I've never really used gcc. (Might even be harder
to remember for people who used C a lot.) Is it more important to be consistent
with gcc or with other D identifiers?

Plus, how many people want it to be linux instead of Linux? From what I've
seen, it seems the majority would prefer it being Linux.
Apr 15 2009
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jordan Miner
<jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.


I realise I probably did my part to spike this discussion.

However, given the complaints Walter got from adding the Posix
identifier, removing "linux" is obviously a really bad idea.

But I must say I think "Linux" should be added, and "linux" be there
for legacy reasons, like "darwin" I guess.

-Tomas
Apr 16 2009
next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 16 de abril a las 10:46 me escribiste:

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jordan Miner
 <jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:


 Because gcc on linux predefines "linux", not "Linux".


 Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.


 
 I realise I probably did my part to spike this discussion.
 
 However, given the complaints Walter got from adding the Posix
 identifier, removing "linux" is obviously a really bad idea.
 
 But I must say I think "Linux" should be added, and "linux" be there
 for legacy reasons, like "darwin" I guess.


This seems like a reasonable tradeoff, issuing a deprecation warning when
the legacy version identifiers are used can be a good idea too, so people
can update the code eventually and the redundant identifiers can be
removed in the future.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 16 2009
prev sibling parent Jordan Miner <jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen Wrote:


 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jordan Miner
 <jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> wrote:

 Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.


 
 I realise I probably did my part to spike this discussion.
 
 However, given the complaints Walter got from adding the Posix
 identifier, removing "linux" is obviously a really bad idea.
 
 But I must say I think "Linux" should be added, and "linux" be there
 for legacy reasons, like "darwin" I guess.
 
 -Tomas


Yes, I definitely agree. By "change", I meant:

- Add Linux as an identifier and deprecate linux.
- Then, after a long enough time for everyone to switch to using Linux, remove
linux.
Apr 19 2009