www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Completion date, alternative implementations, standards

reply Tony West <Tony_member pathlink.com> writes:
My apologies if any of the following has already been recently addressed.

When does Walter feel that the language will be stable and fully implemented ?

Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards body
(when it is stable) ?


Thanks,

Tony.
Nov 12 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Tony West" <Tony_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:aqqgvk$2m6m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 When does Walter feel that the language will be stable and fully

Heck, C isn't stable and fully implemented! As long as people use D, it will undergo more or less constant improvement. If you're asking is the basic feature set there and usable now, the answer is yes.
 Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
 compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.
 Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

 (when it is stable) ?

That would be great!
Nov 14 2002
parent reply Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <ar1vc8$2ls$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
 compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.

 Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

 (when it is stable) ?

That would be great!

or non-commercial compiler for that language? If not, kinda defeats the purpose of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler of a language is bad. Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C compilers? Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your implementation. I am not a big fan of "closed" languages such as Delphi. The language doesn't have to be open source just open specification (i.e. free for all to implement). I don't feel that the controlling body has to be ISO, an individual or company is fine, as long as the specification itself is public (such as D is now). Gosh, even C# is open specification.
Nov 21 2002
next sibling parent Evan McClanahan <evan dontSPAMaltarinteractive.com> writes:
Personally, I'm against standardization.  I've become a big fan of the 
sort of 'design by fiat of the emperor' style of governance exemplified 
by python.  Of course, python is totally open source, so it's not really 
the same situation.

Evan


Mark T wrote:
 In article <ar1vc8$2ls$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 
Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.

Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

body
(when it is stable) ?

That would be great!

Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a commercial or non-commercial compiler for that language? If not, kinda defeats the purpose of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler of a language is bad. Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C compilers? Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your implementation. I am not a big fan of "closed" languages such as Delphi. The language doesn't have to be open source just open specification (i.e. free for all to implement). I don't feel that the controlling body has to be ISO, an individual or company is fine, as long as the specification itself is public (such as D is now). Gosh, even C# is open specification.

Nov 21 2002
prev sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Mark T" <Mark_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:aripn4$iqg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a

 or non-commercial compiler for that language?

I don't know.
  If not, kinda defeats the purpose
 of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler

 language is bad.

One can produce a commercial version using my code for free *provided* it is open source - see the license.
 Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C
 compilers?

I think I'm the only person who ever asked AT&T for permission to do a C++ compiler <g>. (They graciously gave it, too.)
 Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your
 implementation.

The license fee would apply to using my code to create a closed source commercial implementation. If you started from scratch, there would be no fee. The spec itself is copyrighted (as are ISO standards), but that wouldn't stop anyone from implementing it.
Nov 21 2002