www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D Round Robin anouncement

reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone,

I hope D Round Robin will start some competition as well as cooperation
to solve some of D's problems.

http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/d-round-robin.html

Details like deadlines etc. will be posted on November 17. in this
newsgroup.

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCAaa13w+/yD4P9tIRApXMAJ9U744eNKplYDvE21PyN6rkqFZeGQCfVXx2
stnR2cuvd6GIVi8bBbvzWbQ=
=Ncsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 02 2005
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
Maybe I'm a total dunce, but your post seems to contain no information. 
What is the D Round Robin?

"Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> wrote in message 
news:nel8d2-pm3.ln1 lnews.kuehne.cn...
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1

 Hi everyone,

 I hope D Round Robin will start some competition as well as 
 cooperation
 to solve some of D's problems.

 http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/d-round-robin.html

 Details like deadlines etc. will be posted on November 17. in this
 newsgroup.

 Thomas
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

 iD8DBQFCAaa13w+/yD4P9tIRApXMAJ9U744eNKplYDvE21PyN6rkqFZeGQCfVXx2
 stnR2cuvd6GIVi8bBbvzWbQ=
 =Ncsk
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 

Feb 02 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Matthew wrote:

 Maybe I'm a total dunce, but your post seems to contain no information. 

It's the local trend (see the D release announcements)... You're supposed to follow the hyperlink for any info. (See http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/d-round-robin.html) --anders PS. Seems to be a competition of some sort:
 The aim of D round robin is to unlock D's potential and of course having fun.
 Everybody is encouraged to take part - be it with hunting Big Bugs,
 writing core libraries or toying with D source code.

Why we need yet another Phobos is beyond me.
Feb 03 2005
next sibling parent reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anders F Björklund wrote:
|> The aim of D round robin is to unlock D's potential and of course
|> having fun.
|> Everybody is encouraged to take part - be it with hunting Big Bugs,
|> writing core libraries or toying with D source code.
|
|
|     Why we need yet another Phobos is beyond me.

Already running Phobos replacement projects aren't barred.

Basically there are several issues with the current Phobos:

1) there are core components with unclear/no license details

2) there are core components that aren't open sourced
(e.g. internal/qsort.d)

3) language features and lib features are mixed in a hard to separate
way, thus making porting unnecessarily hard

4) no support for 64bit platforms

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCAgsn3w+/yD4P9tIRAuz3AKCgOo8Dvvw0hfAij+yNy3xsmW7WcACfWI8t
BLXaoQ/a/AfzOhoEWt5RXYY=
=FywA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 03 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 Basically there are several issues with the current Phobos:
 
 1) there are core components with unclear/no license details

That is a big problem, indeed. Guess I hadn't looked at every file... Is there a list compiled somewhere ? (license audit of the DMD front-end and Phobos library)
 2) there are core components that aren't open sourced
 (e.g. internal/qsort.d)

But couldn't this just be a) open sourced or b) replaced ? (without having to make another version of Phobos, I mean)
 3) language features and lib features are mixed in a hard to separate
 way, thus making porting unnecessarily hard

The code patches necessary for GDC seem to have a long way to swim upstream, to be included in main Phobos, that's for sure... You would have thought that eventually it wouldn't need patching anymore, but that does not seem to be the case ?
 4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ? And there are the varios OOP rewrites of Phobos, of course. (plus Phobos rising / Ares, and all the other D libraries) --anders
Feb 03 2005
next sibling parent reply Benjamin Herr <ben 0x539.de> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ?

I tried changing the un-64bit-ish "ulong _d_newarray(...)" to return an Array struct (same size on 32bit platforms even) but it did not work - I think that the DMD generates code assuming that a scalar ulong is returned and not an aggregate type. However, I do not see how replacing phobos can fix that. -ben
Feb 03 2005
next sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Benjamin Herr schrieb am Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:03:24 +0100:
 Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ?

I tried changing the un-64bit-ish "ulong _d_newarray(...)" to return an Array struct (same size on 32bit platforms even) but it did not work - I think that the DMD generates code assuming that a scalar ulong is returned and not an aggregate type. However, I do not see how replacing phobos can fix that.

The compiler and the core lib components are rather tightly coupled. Unless on of them starts identifying and tackling the problems no progress will happen. Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCAjpJ3w+/yD4P9tIRAsoFAJ45m2thbUNEG8w99A69nqtPf1pucgCfWnoG JkgSlHLBqQKiuFoWL4WdL2Q= =bIiZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Benjamin Herr" <ben 0x539.de> wrote in message
news:ctt3uc$2l53$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ?

I tried changing the un-64bit-ish "ulong _d_newarray(...)" to return an Array struct (same size on 32bit platforms even) but it did not work - I think that the DMD generates code assuming that a scalar ulong is returned and not an aggregate type.

That doesn't work because, sadly, on linux structs are returned in a different way than ulongs are, even if they are the same size.
Feb 03 2005
parent reply Benjamin Herr <ben 0x539.de> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "Benjamin Herr" <ben 0x539.de> wrote in message
 news:ctt3uc$2l53$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Anders F Björklund wrote:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:

4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ?

I tried changing the un-64bit-ish "ulong _d_newarray(...)" to return an Array struct (same size on 32bit platforms even) but it did not work - I think that the DMD generates code assuming that a scalar ulong is returned and not an aggregate type.

That doesn't work because, sadly, on linux structs are returned in a different way than ulongs are, even if they are the same size.

What can I do about it?
Feb 03 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Benjamin Herr" <ben 0x539.de> wrote in message
news:ctu3da$mvk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 "Benjamin Herr" <ben 0x539.de> wrote in message
 news:ctt3uc$2l53$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Anders F Björklund wrote:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:

4) no support for 64bit platforms

Clearly a "bug" in the current implementation. Or are you referring to actual API changes ?

I tried changing the un-64bit-ish "ulong _d_newarray(...)" to return an Array struct (same size on 32bit platforms even) but it did not work - I think that the DMD generates code assuming that a scalar ulong is returned and not an aggregate type.

That doesn't work because, sadly, on linux structs are returned in a different way than ulongs are, even if they are the same size.

What can I do about it?

For 64 bits? I wouldn't bother. All the stuff in internal.* isn't meant to be called by user code, it operates hand-in-glove with the compiler, and the compiler generates the calls to it. Therefore, what to do about it rests on the decisions the person doing a 64 bit compiler needs to make.
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anders F Björklund wrote:
| Thomas Kuehne wrote:
|
|> Basically there are several issues with the current Phobos:
|>
|> 1) there are core components with unclear/no license details
|
|
| That is a big problem, indeed. Guess I hadn't looked
| at every file... Is there a list compiled somewhere ?
| (license audit of the DMD front-end and Phobos library)

The following are the results of a very brief review and are likely to
be incomplete.

The DMD front-end(dual license GPL / Artisitc) issues:

port.h, mem.c, inifile.c
	copyright header(Digital Mars/Walter Bright) without the
	license details

mem.h
	copyright header(Chromium Communications) without
	license details

gnuc.h, gnuc.c
	neither copyright nor license headers


Phobos is, simply going by the dmd.zip package and ignoring any
newsgroup posts by Walter, non-redistributable (see license.txt).

(As stated earlier, it's difficult do identify the core components and
their dependencies.)

Core components with unclear/missing copyright headers:

internal/arraycast.d
internal/arraycat.d
internal/cast.d
internal/complex.c
internal/dmain2.d
internal/invariant.d
internal/mars.h
internal/memset.d
internal/object.d
internal/switch.d
std/typeinfo/*
std/array.d
std/asserterror.d
std/moduleinit.d
std/outofmemory.d
std/switcherr.d

Core components with problematic licenses (except the general
non-redistributable problem):

internal/qsort.d (Prototronics, licensed to Digitalmars)

In addition several of the core components simply state "public domain".
I'm no legal expert but almost every country has it's own definition of
"public domain". Maybe asking the copyright holders to license under the
~ zlib/libpng terms (http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php)
will evade potential troubles.

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCAirp3w+/yD4P9tIRApt2AKDF4DJ6xtYSLx24z3a/5S2aiuPzogCffPlR
/oozhR0LbgQIuNMjmN3vfpE=
=Sk2o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 03 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 In addition several of the core components simply state "public domain".
 I'm no legal expert but almost every country has it's own definition of
 "public domain". Maybe asking the copyright holders to license under the
 ~ zlib/libpng terms (http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php)
 will evade potential troubles.

It the code is in the Public Domain, then there is no copyright holder. --anders
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Anders F Björklund wrote:
 The aim of D round robin is to unlock D's potential and of course
 having fun.
 Everybody is encouraged to take part - be it with hunting Big Bugs,
 writing core libraries or toying with D source code.

Why we need yet another Phobos is beyond me.

Already running Phobos replacement projects aren't barred. Basically there are several issues with the current Phobos:

Not to mention: 5. std.date is somewhat inadequate - see D/27490 digitalmars.D.bugs/2365 digitalmars.D/5405 (Yes, I'm still working on writing something to the spec that eventually came out of the last of these. I've just had other things on my mind.) 6. Some things are just randomly missing, like a function to copy files. Stewart. -- My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Feb 07 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

     Why we need yet another Phobos is beyond me.

Already running Phobos replacement projects aren't barred. Basically there are several issues with the current Phobos:

Not to mention: 5. std.date is somewhat inadequate - see D/27490 digitalmars.D.bugs/2365 digitalmars.D/5405 (Yes, I'm still working on writing something to the spec that eventually came out of the last of these. I've just had other things on my mind.) 6. Some things are just randomly missing, like a function to copy files.

Still, why does a few bugs in the library warrant a new one ? Isn't it easier to "just" fix the holes in Phobos instead ? Such as the missing copyFile function, or missing Exceptions. I know that some have written OOP "alternatives" already, which is OK since Phobos isn't object-oriented (by design) But having multiple versions of basic std functions ? Uggg. (having multiple basic object wrappers is problem enough) The missing license issues and the DMD/Phobos separation definitely needs addressing, as well as the more obvious bugs and shortcomings. Another interesting question is whether 64-bit support will be in 1.0 ? Since it's in the language already, I think it should be in the lib too. I'm just afraid that the alternative runtime libraries are mostly a reaction to the slow turnabout time to get bugs fixed, and the unclear licensing issues on existing code and what happens to new contributions. (lack of a bug database also seems to have "lost" a few bugs / patches) The apparent lack of Phobos coding standard is also somewhat confusing, as the style is right now very dependant on the author of the module... --anders
Feb 07 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ben Hinkle <Ben_member pathlink.com> writes:
 The aim of D round robin is to unlock D's potential and of course having fun.
 Everybody is encouraged to take part - be it with hunting Big Bugs,
 writing core libraries or toying with D source code.

Why we need yet another Phobos is beyond me.

I hope one can submit a slightly modified phobos - I just want to redo the Exception hierarchy and fix some bugs in it. And maybe add libiconv support if the platform supports it. I just went looking at the OSI license list and interestingly enough I couldn't find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd think the open source folks would allow the most open license of all. oh well. :-(
Feb 03 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 I just went looking at the OSI license list and interestingly enough I couldn't
 find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd think the open source
 folks would allow the most open license of all. oh well. :-(

Public Domain has to do with copyright, not *so* much with licensing. (or more specifically that the author gives up any copyright claims) The problem with public domain is that it is so easy to close again ? Most open source uses copyright to make sure that the rights remain... But as far as I know, Public Domain can use the "brand" Open Source - as long as it is accompanied by the actual source code, of course... Kind of an interesting meta-question, if the absence of copyright and/or license is a copyright/license in itself? But not for this D newsgroup. --anders
Feb 03 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:ctt94n$2q3n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Ben Hinkle wrote:

 I just went looking at the OSI license list and interestingly enough I 
 couldn't
 find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd think the open 
 source
 folks would allow the most open license of all. oh well. :-(

Public Domain has to do with copyright, not *so* much with licensing. (or more specifically that the author gives up any copyright claims) The problem with public domain is that it is so easy to close again ? Most open source uses copyright to make sure that the rights remain... But as far as I know, Public Domain can use the "brand" Open Source - as long as it is accompanied by the actual source code, of course... Kind of an interesting meta-question, if the absence of copyright and/or license is a copyright/license in itself? But not for this D newsgroup. --anders

A license is a set of rules set down by the copyright holder. So if there is no copyright holder the question of license is moot. The software is free to evolve without restriction. Anyone can take it in any direction. I wonder if anyone has studied open source software from the evolutionary point of view. I remember seeing something like a family tree for Unix during the SCO battle. They were argueing snippets of code get copy/pasted between projects willy nilly and while that's a no-no in copyrighted software (unless the license allows ... umm... offspring) it is perfectly ok to do with public domain code. In some sense one can argue that if we had a robust population of public domain code that the mixing of code bases would result in a much faster development pace and result in a better, more fit, set of code. That's part of the point of open source, I know, but the darn licenses still get in the way IMO. It's like claiming copyright ownership of a fragment of someone's DNA - which is something the medical community is trying to figure out, actually.
Feb 03 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 I wonder if anyone has studied open source software from the evolutionary 
 point of view. I remember seeing something like a family tree for Unix 
 during the SCO battle. They were argueing snippets of code get copy/pasted 
 between projects willy nilly and while that's a no-no in copyrighted 
 software (unless the license allows ... umm... offspring) it is perfectly ok 
 to do with public domain code. In some sense one can argue that if we had a 
 robust population of public domain code that the mixing of code bases would 
 result in a much faster development pace and result in a better, more fit, 
 set of code. That's part of the point of open source, I know, but the darn 
 licenses still get in the way IMO. It's like claiming copyright ownership of 
 a fragment of someone's DNA - which is something the medical community is 
 trying to figure out, actually. 

All these copyright wars will seem like a light breeze when the real patent war storm start. Then the implementation won't matter anymore. To me, it's just another-thing-that-keeps-me-from-actually-coding... And I just hate that. :-( http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ --anders
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Hinkle wrote:
| I just went looking at the OSI license list and interestingly enough
| I couldn't find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd
| think the open source folks would allow the most open license of all.
| oh well. :-(

Usually asking the copyright holder to license their work to you under
the ZLIB license isn't that cumbersome and avoids potential legal quarrels.

http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCAio83w+/yD4P9tIRAjWAAKC4q0JX5vegSc5mD6fgwabWhJvgrwCfeyWA
kzYEk/66lSjihMuunYRglu0=
=XXso
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 03 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 | I couldn't find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd
 | think the open source folks would allow the most open license of all.
 
 Usually asking the copyright holder to license their work to you under
 the ZLIB license isn't that cumbersome and avoids potential legal quarrels.

Well, if the original code is Public Domain then *anyone* can do that ? Just add a new copyright statement and the license text, and it's done. --anders
Feb 03 2005
parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:ctt9u4$2rb3$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 | I couldn't find one that mentioned "public domain" anywhere. You'd
 | think the open source folks would allow the most open license of all.

 Usually asking the copyright holder to license their work to you under
 the ZLIB license isn't that cumbersome and avoids potential legal 
 quarrels.

Well, if the original code is Public Domain then *anyone* can do that ? Just add a new copyright statement and the license text, and it's done. --anders

But the original is forever in the public domain.
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:ctsmf6$25t5$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew wrote:

 Maybe I'm a total dunce, but your post seems to contain no
 information.

It's the local trend (see the D release announcements)... You're supposed to follow the hyperlink for any info.

Then it's a daft one. Who's got the time to be following any and all links when given no information about what jewels (or lumps of coke) might lurk there. More likely that people'll only be motivated to write one what-the-hell-are-you-on-about post. This being that. ;)
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:
Interesting!  I was thinking of an entry that qualifies in all three 
categories -- an obfuscated library that crashes d compilers :)


Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Hi everyone,
 
 I hope D Round Robin will start some competition as well as cooperation
 to solve some of D's problems.
 
 http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/d-round-robin.html
 
 Details like deadlines etc. will be posted on November 17. in this
 newsgroup.
 
 Thomas
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 iD8DBQFCAaa13w+/yD4P9tIRApXMAJ9U744eNKplYDvE21PyN6rkqFZeGQCfVXx2
 stnR2cuvd6GIVi8bBbvzWbQ=
 =Ncsk
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Feb 03 2005
parent Anders Runesson <anders runesson.info> writes:
zwang wrote:
 Interesting!  I was thinking of an entry that qualifies in all three 
 categories -- an obfuscated library that crashes d compilers :)

That is what I usually produce when I'm trying to write serious code, so I could just take any of my old code I have lying around... Let's just hope that it works in reverse, so if I try to contribute to the contest I will write the most beautiful code ever :) /Anders Runesson
Feb 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 Details like deadlines etc. will be posted on November 17. in this
 newsgroup.

The website said "February 17", which sounds a little more interesting ;-) --anders
Feb 03 2005
parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.THISISSPAM.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anders F Björklund wrote:
| Thomas Kuehne wrote:
|
|> Details like deadlines etc. will be posted on November 17. in this
|> newsgroup.
|
|
| The website said "February 17", which sounds a little more interesting
|
| ;-)

:-P

Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCAiql3w+/yD4P9tIRAlOVAKCpVJ1p4HflNwVQEw3yIuBY+29IHACeN3+m
5cNxrZowa2ubzQhTaD9KGf8=
=egAh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 03 2005