www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - DMD 0.80 release

reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Mar 05 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think on the next version all the time. great job! but... seems something is wrong ########### file A.d class AA { protected: this() { printf("class AA\n"); } } ########## file AB.dimport A; class B : AA { public this() { super(); printf("class B\n"); } } void main() { new B; } ######### dmd A AB -I~/dmd/src/phobos AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK ######### Ant
Mar 05 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
I should add that is the AA.this
is public compiles and runs ok.

Ant


On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:33:25 +0000, Ant wrote:

 In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think on the next version all the time. great job! but... seems something is wrong ########### file A.d class AA { protected: this() { printf("class AA\n"); } } ########## file AB.dimport A; class B : AA { public this() { super(); printf("class B\n"); } } void main() { new B; } ######### dmd A AB -I~/dmd/src/phobos AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK ######### Ant

Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
I should add...

Walter, maybe you could keep a couple of
larger applications to test with each new
release.
I found this just trying to compile DUI.

Ant

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:19:48 -0500, Ant wrote:

 I should add that if the AA.this
 is public compiles and runs ok.
 
 Ant
 
 
 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:33:25 +0000, Ant wrote:
 
 In article <c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think on the next version all the time. great job! but... seems something is wrong ########### file A.d class AA { protected: this() { printf("class AA\n"); } } ########## file AB.dimport A; class B : AA { public this() { super(); printf("class B\n"); } } void main() { new B; } ######### dmd A AB -I~/dmd/src/phobos AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK ######### Ant


Mar 05 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c2arn5$30k2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 dmd is getting so usable that we (almost) don't think
 on the next version all the time. great job!

Thanks! One huge advantage D has, for a new language, is it uses the existing debugged optimizer and code generator from DMC++.
 but...

 seems something is wrong
 ########### file A.d
 class AA
 {
 protected:
 this()
 {
 printf("class AA\n");
 }
 }

 ########## file AB.dimport A;

 class B : AA
 {
 public
 this()
 {
 super();
 printf("class B\n");
 }
 }

 void main()
 {
 new B;
 }

 #########
 dmd A AB  -I~/dmd/src/phobos
 AB.d(8): class AA member this is not accessible

 if classes AA and B and on the same module compiles and runs OK
 #########

That looks like a bug :-(
Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:43:05 -0800, Walter wrote:

 
 That looks like a bug :-(

Any plans for a release dmd_0.80a ? I can't use 0.80 :( Ant
Mar 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:

 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
 bug fix update.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I forgot to say: on the other example I had class AA on module A because dmd segfaults if class A is on module A... Ant
Mar 05 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...
 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:

 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to


 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I forgot to say: on the other example I had class AA on module A because dmd segfaults if class A is on module A...

Can you post a code example, please?
Mar 05 2004
parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:39:01 -0800, Walter wrote:

 
 "Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...
 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:

 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to


 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I forgot to say: on the other example I had class AA on module A because dmd segfaults if class A is on module A...

Can you post a code example, please?

here: ############ file Same.d module Same; // makes no difference if removed class Same { this() { printf("Same\n"); } } ############ file Other.d modules Other; // makes no difference if removed import Same; class Other : Same // segfault // class Other : Same.Same //***UGLY ALERT*** but doesn't segfault { this() { printf("other\n"); } } void main() { new Other; } ############ dmd Same Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos Segmentation fault with the alternate line "class Other : Same.Same" is used it compiles and runs as expected but it's kind of ugly. however on the real world I expect things be like: import same.Leds; class Other : Same{} and the problem might go away... let me try: ... trying... I don't have time now... but the compiler is saying: "same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same" maybe it's my fault I'll check it later. Ant
Mar 05 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:49:13 -0500, Ant wrote:

 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:39:01 -0800, Walter wrote:
 
 
 "Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.03.06.01.52.45.24161 yahoo.ca...
 On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:47:31 -0800, Walter wrote:

 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to


 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I forgot to say: on the other example I had class AA on module A because dmd segfaults if class A is on module A...

Can you post a code example, please?

here: ############ file Same.d module Same; // makes no difference if removed class Same { this() { printf("Same\n"); } } ############ file Other.d modules Other; // makes no difference if removed import Same; class Other : Same // segfault // class Other : Same.Same //***UGLY ALERT*** but doesn't segfault { this() { printf("other\n"); } } void main() { new Other; } ############ dmd Same Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos Segmentation fault with the alternate line "class Other : Same.Same" is used it compiles and runs as expected but it's kind of ugly. however on the real world I expect things be like: import same.Leds; class Other : Same{} and the problem might go away... let me try: ... trying... I don't have time now... but the compiler is saying: "same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same" maybe it's my fault I'll check it later. Ant

OK the following works: ############# file same/Same.d module same.Same; class Same { this() { printf("same/Same\n"); } } ############# file same/Other.d module same.Other; import same.Same; class Other : Same { this() { printf("same/Other\n"); } } void main() { new Other; } ############# dmd same/Same same/Other -I~/dmd/src/phobos:./same ############# compiles and runs as expected the message I had "same/Other.d(3): module Same is in multiple packages same.Same" was because in same/Other I had "import Same". It was my fault but the compiler message should be reviewd. Ant
Mar 05 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Walter wrote:

Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify a
bug fix update.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

  

actually pick up two hidden bugs in an existing program already. Great job! -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 05 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]
 pick up two hidden bugs

Isn't the `hidden' redundant? So long.
Mar 06 2004
parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:28:08 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:
 
 [...]
 pick up two hidden bugs

Isn't the `hidden' redundant? So long.

:) not on the real world, sometimes you know you need to fix something... sometimes you know exactly what to do... Ant
Mar 06 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Ant wrote:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:28:08 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:

  

J Anderson wrote:

[...]
    

pick up two hidden bugs
      

Isn't the `hidden' redundant? So long.

:) not on the real world, sometimes you know you need to fix something... sometimes you know exactly what to do... Ant

but need to ponder the best solution so they stay in the program for a while. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 06 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]
 Also sometimes I have bugs that I know exactly where they are 

I see. It is a matter of wording. I would prefer to call faulty/wrong code as such. For me only unlocalized faulty code is a bug. IMO a system that has no known bugs according to its specification does not get buggy, when the specification changes and that system is considered the base of the implementation of the changed specification. So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

IMO a system that has no known bugs according to its specification does
not get buggy, when the specification changes and that system is
considered the base of the implementation of the changed specification.

  

errors). Do you require every detail in the program to be in the specifications? That would be impossible.
So long.
  

-- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 What about something like Y2K (ie number overflows, floating point
 errors).

I do not quite catch what you mean with your examples. We had a system that was not Y2K compliant, because it was not a requirement in its specification. When Y2K approached the management decided to not make it the base of the implementation of a Y2K compliant system, but instead switch to a newly built system incorporating and using the meanwhile evolved techniques, by even establishing its own language and compilers.
 Do you require every detail in the program to be in the specifications? 

Yes ...
 That would be impossible.

and disagreed. Vice versa: I know of projects that failed to fulfill the final check and taking over by the client because our knowledge engineers where not able to catch that the client wanted to do something illegal with the generated system and therefore had not expressed clearly what he wanted, but nevertheless had expressed his requirement in the task. So the system had no known bugs according to its specification, but the specification was itself faulty according to the task. So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

J Anderson wrote:

  

What about something like Y2K (ie number overflows, floating point
errors).
    

I do not quite catch what you mean with your examples. We had a system that was not Y2K compliant, because it was not a requirement in its specification. When Y2K approached the management decided to not make it the base of the implementation of a Y2K compliant system, but instead switch to a newly built system incorporating and using the meanwhile evolved techniques, by even establishing its own language and compilers.

Floating point errors: Each time you perform an operation with floating point, details are lost in the calculations. Now what if your specification said that the program was to run for 1000 years on a super computer but floating point wasn't in the specs. Now you can't physically run the program for a 1000 years so the program would most likely crash due to this bug.
Do you require every detail in the program to be in the specifications? 
    

Yes ...
That would be impossible.
    


Unless you say the code is the specification, then of course (if that is the case) the specification could never be wrong.
and disagreed. Vice versa: I know of projects that failed to fulfill the
final check and taking over by the client because our knowledge engineers
where not able to catch that the client wanted to do something illegal
with the generated system and therefore had not expressed clearly what he
wanted, but nevertheless had expressed his requirement in the task. So the
system had no known bugs according to its specification, but the
specification was itself faulty according to the task.

So long. 
  

systems. Bugs keep appearing even though the specification is good. Bug management is a cycle, programmers fix the bugs and the users find new ones. Everytime they fix a bug they don't go and add that to the specification (imaging the specifications for windows it would be longer then the code itself and no-one would be able to read it). ie Fixed bug when : If player A has menu X up when player B clicks up player B doesn't have to pay for the selected item. This is the kinda error that escapes the testing saftynet and is something you don't add to the specifications because it occurs so infrequently. Users may pick it up eventually. The trouble is you can't predict what data the user the is going to give the system. You can't predict everything the user is going to do. There are so many pathways a program can go and each fork is exponential. Specifications are an abstraction, the details are where the bugs occur. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 Floating point errors:
 Each time you perform an operation with floating point, details are lost 
 in the calculations.  Now what if your specification said that the 
 program was to run for 1000 years on a super computer but floating point 
 wasn't in the specs.  Now you can't physically run the program for a 
 1000 years so the program would most likely crash due to this bug.

Still not catching what you mean. If the specification does not mention floating point operations, then every use of them is related to faulty code. If the required runtime exceeds the MTBF of the underlying hardware by a certain threshold the specification itself is faulty.
 I should have said impossible with all but the simplest of applications.
 Unless you say the code is the specification, then of course (if that is
 the case) the specification could never be wrong.

Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task which output might harm human life.
 Looking at any program I use today ...

I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors, medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc. So long.
Mar 07 2004
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2g97i$f3q$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task
 which output might harm human life.

 Looking at any program I use today ...

I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors, medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.

Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail, would cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some other implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler. I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since those apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I felt it necessary to add such a clause.
Mar 07 2004
next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

[...]
 DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which

Where is it? I have not detected it, when reading over the license some time ago, and even now, with your hint, I am unable to catch it. If it is so hidden, then it is useless for you. So long.
Mar 08 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2igta$1cko$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:

 [...]
 DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which

Where is it? I have not detected it, when reading over the license some time ago, and even now, with your hint, I am unable to catch it. If it is so hidden, then it is useless for you.

\dmd\license.txt
Mar 08 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 \dmd\license.txt

Upps. Sometimes even a red traffic light can be overseen. So long.
Mar 08 2004
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Walter wrote:

 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:c2g97i$f3q$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Nope. If you have this opinion, then you should never take over a task
which output might harm human life.


Looking at any program I use today ...

I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors, medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.

Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail, would cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some other implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.

Will that license restriction remain?
 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since those
 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I felt it
 necessary to add such a clause.

Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using DMD. Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime' appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again, you do live in a ridiculous country. Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]
 without making criminals of anyone who does.

Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are imposed on a product? So long.
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Manfred Nowak schrieb:

without making criminals of anyone who does.

[...] Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are imposed on a product?

I would say the problem is, if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated. That means: to use DM tools, you agree to the license. If you make some mission-critical software with it, the license terminates and you may not use DM tools AT ALL. Point. I cannot really say with my minor knowledge of right, what happens if you continue to use DM tools. I'm pretty much sure it cannot be considered a crime, but can be prosecuted civically, as long as and if at all Walter cares. I think making criminals is this sense is not that unusual. Example - copy protected "audio" CDs. I buy them, then i (illegally!) rip them to load them on my own personal MP3 player, and also copy them so that they would play without nasty clicks in my old Hi-Fi CD player. I'm pretty much sure it's illegal but legitimate, and i hope that no side would be interested in prosecution. -eye
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:

[...]
 if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated.

Not confirmed for the license in question here. And superfluous anyway, because the termination of a license would only prevent further development of programs, but would not influence already created programs. [...]
 as long as and if at all Walter cares.

Slightly wrong. If he does not care for some time, it could be for him like having not written it at all, because he may not be allowed to act inconsistent. [...]
 Example - copy protected "audio" CDs.

That is not a single product, but a category of products. As far as I know in Germany it is now legal to copy even copy protected CDs for private usage, where private is even then, when forwarding a copy as a gift to a relative. In former Eastern Germany Software was a free good anyway. So long.
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:
 Manfred Nowak schrieb:
 
 without making criminals of anyone who does.

[...] Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are imposed on a product?

I would say the problem is, if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated. That means: to use DM tools, you agree to the license. If you make some mission-critical software with it, the license terminates and you may not use DM tools AT ALL. Point. I cannot really say with my minor knowledge of right, what happens if you continue to use DM tools. I'm pretty much sure it cannot be considered a crime, but can be prosecuted civically, as long as and if at all Walter cares. I think making criminals is this sense is not that unusual. Example - copy protected "audio" CDs. I buy them, then i (illegally!) rip them to load them on my own personal MP3 player, and also copy them so that they would play without nasty clicks in my old Hi-Fi CD player. I'm pretty much sure it's illegal but legitimate, and i hope that no side would be interested in prosecution.

Audio copying is generally a much more 'open' legal field than license agreements, which are legally binding agreements between a customer and a manufacturer, generally to the letter, unless overridden by local legislation. You generally don't get license agreements with your audio CD, the usage rights you have are implied when you buy the product, and it is up to local legislation to determine what your rights are. For example, in Norway, it was legal to download copy-protected audio (that you did not *own* yourself - major point) onto your PC untill the 1st of january this year. It was only illegal to distribute audio without permission untill that point. Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
 
 [...]
 
without making criminals of anyone who does.

[...] Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are imposed on a product? So long.

It tends to be in most countries. For example, my Windows 2k license says I'm not allowed to distribute copies of it. And the GPL says I can't modify without disclosing the source of the modified product. Just to name two examples. A copyright holder controls all rights of all users, except 'fair use'. Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law. Even if the copyright holder doesn't mind. Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]
 Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime. So long.
Mar 12 2004
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
 
 [...]
 
Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.

[...] Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime. So long.

And crime is depressingly often legal. So short :-) Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 12 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

 And crime is depressingly often legal.

And more depressingly, sometimes there is a crime where only a few think that it is. For example: A women aged thirty after years of waiting finally has given birth to a triplet. This is made possible by artificial insemination carried out by a specialist in Berlin. She and her husband are very glad about that. So long.
Mar 12 2004
prev sibling parent reply frodeau <frodeau_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]
 Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime. So long.

Mar 13 2004
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
frodeau wrote:
 In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
 
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]

Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.

[...] Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime. So long.

Please, what is the meaning of the word "is" here?

Breaking a law, if "a law exists", is not necessarily a crime. Well, that's how I read it at any rate. Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
Mar 13 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message
news:c2stop$1nsc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
 does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,


 cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some


 implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.


Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.
 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since


 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I


 necessary to add such a clause.

would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using DMD.

My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a criminal one.
 Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a
 disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will
 produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime'
 appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again,
 you do live in a ridiculous country.

I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense. But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are. (You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20 years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is testament to that.)
Mar 30 2004
parent reply larry cowan <larry_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c4bddj$2pd3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> wrote in message
news:c2stop$1nsc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license
 does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,


 cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some


 implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.


Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.
 I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application
 developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since


 apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I


 necessary to add such a clause.

would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using DMD.

My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a criminal one.
 Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a
 disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will
 produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime'
 appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again,
 you do live in a ridiculous country.

I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense. But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are. (You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20 years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is testament to that.)

is largely due to my very positive experience with the Zortech compiler 20 years ago. May the force be with you.
Mar 30 2004
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"larry cowan" <larry_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c4c6qp$10hq$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 As to the above, my quick pickup on D when I came in contact a couple

 is largely due to my very positive experience with the Zortech compiler 20

 ago.  May the force be with you.

That's good to hear. Thanks for letting me know.
Mar 30 2004
prev sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

I see. And I do not believe that you use programs for the control of
transportation systems(railways, aeroplanes, rockets), atomic reactors,
medic equipment (X-rays, artificial respiration), weapon systems, banking
systems, store keeping, production robots, ... etc.

So long.
  

are no hidden bugs and history has proven that. Your right in saying though that certain apps need to be fully tested as much is humanly possible but there are other apps that shouldn't be fully tested to such a level (it simply costs to much). That's not the point. What about the mars landers. These had never been tried on mars before, although it was in the specifications. There could have easily been software problems the technicians didn't account for, as have been with many other the other space missions. The nasa team use one of the biggest budgets to test for these things. I'm not saying it's not impossible to get a program correct to the specifications. I'm saying it's impossible to handle every possibility in the specification. Moral, never assume a program is correct. Anyway this conversation is getting a bit of topic. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

[...]
 but there are other apps that shouldn't be fully tested to such 
 a level

Also this is allowed to be incorporated into the specification.
 never been tried on mars before, although it was in the specifications.

You do not mean, that the specification was faulty in that way that it demanded a test on mars, do you?
 I'm not saying it's not impossible to get a program correct to the 
 specifications.

Upps. Wrongly intertwined negatives?
 I'm saying it's impossible to handle every possibility 
 in the specification.

The specification may even include a function over the time variable expressing an upper bound for the number of faulty code lines detected after being put into operation.
 Moral, never assume a program is correct.

True in a mathematical sense, but not in the sense of contracts. So long.
Mar 07 2004
parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

True in a mathematical sense, but not in the sense of contracts.

So long.
  

-- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Mar 07 2004
prev sibling parent "Tu Nam" <dreamweaver mail15.com> writes:
Welcome to .toString and you make my String class has good exhale ! Will
test it !
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c2ap6r$2s75$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Didn't get all the bugs I wanted fixed done, but there's enough to justify

 bug fix update.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Mar 06 2004