D - D compiler status
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Mar 08 2002
- "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> Mar 11 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Mar 11 2002
- "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> Mar 11 2002
- "OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> Mar 11 2002
- roland <nancyetroland free.fr> Mar 11 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Mar 11 2002
I suppose people might be wondering what I'm working on with the compiler at the moment. After all, why did I waste time implementing an inline assembler, when so much needs to be done with the core language? The answer is the garbage collector. It is currently written in C++, and is single threaded. It's the main barrier to getting D to support multithreaded programming. To upgrade the garbage collector, it needs to handle exceptions. D has great syntax for synchronizing and handling exceptions, but those do not fit in well with C++ exceptions. So, the garbage collector needs to be rewritten in D. Rewriting it in D needs, well, a few lines of inline assembler. Now that the inline assembler is done (and I also put the instruction set support enhancements back into the C compiler), I am working on converting the garbage collector to D. My aim is to remove all the C and C++ code from the runtime library, and have it fully bootstrapped into D. Writing the garbage collector in D proves that D can write system level code. (How many other pretender successors to C++ can you write a real gc in? <g>)
Mar 08 2002
If you used the CLR from .NET you would get a garbage collector "for free". :-) Dan "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a6cclp$1mqi$1 digitaldaemon.com...I suppose people might be wondering what I'm working on with the compiler
the moment. After all, why did I waste time implementing an inline assembler, when so much needs to be done with the core language? The answer is the garbage collector. It is currently written in C++, and
single threaded. It's the main barrier to getting D to support
programming. To upgrade the garbage collector, it needs to handle exceptions. D has great syntax for synchronizing and handling exceptions, but those do not fit in well with C++ exceptions. So, the garbage collector needs to be rewritten in D. Rewriting it in D needs, well, a few lines of inline assembler. Now that the inline assembler is done (and I also put the instruction set support enhancements back into the C compiler), I am working on converting the garbage collector to D. My aim is to remove all the C and C++ code
the runtime library, and have it fully bootstrapped into D. Writing the garbage collector in D proves that D can write system level code. (How many other pretender successors to C++ can you write a real gc in? <g>)
Mar 11 2002
"J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6idtd$1am9$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you used the CLR from .NET you would get a garbage collector "for
:-)
Can't write system code in .NET.
Mar 11 2002
It's your language, so you're of course free to do whatever you want with it. But I still contend that by focusing on the "systems" aspect, you're loosing a lot of mindshare; I'd much rather see D as an "improved C++" (or "an alternative to C#") rather than a wholesale flat-out replacment for C/C++. Counting either lines-of-code or number of developers, I suspect only a very small amount of "systems" code is written these days. Device drivers is the most obvious example where it is still necessary for a non-trivial number of programmers to get down to the "bare metal"; but D has the potential to be useful to a much larger audience than low-level bit-twidlers. Dan "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a6j2nt$1jqe$1 digitaldaemon.com..."J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6idtd$1am9$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you used the CLR from .NET you would get a garbage collector "for
:-)
Can't write system code in .NET.
Mar 11 2002
"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6j877$1m4a$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a6j2nt$1jqe$1 digitaldaemon.com..."J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6idtd$1am9$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you used the CLR from .NET you would get a garbage collector "for
:-)
Can't write system code in .NET.
It's your language, so you're of course free to do whatever you want with it. But I still contend that by focusing on the "systems" aspect, you're
a lot of mindshare; I'd much rather see D as an "improved C++" (or "an alternative to C#") rather than a wholesale flat-out replacment for C/C++. Counting either lines-of-code or number of developers, I suspect only a
small amount of "systems" code is written these days. Device drivers is
most obvious example where it is still necessary for a non-trivial number
programmers to get down to the "bare metal"; but D has the potential to be useful to a much larger audience than low-level bit-twidlers. Dan
I think Walter meant that D needs a system level garbage collector, not some CLR interpreted one, and that such a gc cannot be built with .NET? -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net __________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Mar 11 2002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "J. Daniel Smith" a écrit :It's your language, so you're of course free to do whatever you want with it. But I still contend that by focusing on the "systems" aspect, you're loosing a lot of mindshare; I'd much rather see D as an "improved C++" (or "an alternative to C#") rather than a wholesale flat-out replacment for C/C++. Counting either lines-of-code or number of developers, I suspect only a very small amount of "systems" code is written these days. Device drivers is the most obvious example where it is still necessary for a non-trivial number of programmers to get down to the "bare metal"; but D has the potential to be useful to a much larger audience than low-level bit-twidlers. Dan "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a6j2nt$1jqe$1 digitaldaemon.com..."J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6idtd$1am9$1 digitaldaemon.com...If you used the CLR from .NET you would get a garbage collector "for
:-)
Can't write system code in .NET.
- If you can do system programming then that mean you are not limited by the langage itself. That mean all the possibility remains open, witch is a good thing for a new langage. Lets restric it the later possible. - system programming is often complex and difficult to debug. For that, a new tool like D is interresting. roland
Mar 11 2002
D is intended as the evolutionary next step for the kinds of programs that C and C++ targets. That is a great deal broader than what .net addresses. From a pragmatic standpoint, D is new and has yet to prove itself. .net is brand new and has yet to live up to any of its promises. It seems to me that tying D to .net at this time will add unnecessary risk. I think the bare metal bit twiddlers need a great language, too <g>. "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message news:a6j877$1m4a$1 digitaldaemon.com...It's your language, so you're of course free to do whatever you want with it. But I still contend that by focusing on the "systems" aspect, you're
a lot of mindshare; I'd much rather see D as an "improved C++" (or "an alternative to C#") rather than a wholesale flat-out replacment for C/C++. Counting either lines-of-code or number of developers, I suspect only a
small amount of "systems" code is written these days. Device drivers is
most obvious example where it is still necessary for a non-trivial number
programmers to get down to the "bare metal"; but D has the potential to be useful to a much larger audience than low-level bit-twidlers. Dan
Mar 11 2002