www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Open Source D

reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
features.
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? 

The language specification is neither complete or standardized.
It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, 

One person to define the language is not so bad, but having the same one then work on a compiler etc is way too much of a workload, in my opinion.
seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.

If a bug is defined as "not conforming to specification" then we are in trouble as the specs are still fluid. -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia 9/09/2005 9:27:39 AM
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:
 
 
What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? 

The language specification is neither complete or standardized.

So we are waiting for Walter to make the spec final?
 
It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
bringing D into the mainstream, 

One person to define the language is not so bad, but having the same one then work on a compiler etc is way too much of a workload, in my opinion.

I agree, I was mainly talking about the compiler implementation.
 
seeing as there is a healthy community 
of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
features.

If a bug is defined as "not conforming to specification" then we are in trouble as the specs are still fluid.

That is a valid point, but there are many bugs that are valid code in the spec, but still are broken.
Sep 08 2005
prev sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:

[...]
 The language specification is neither complete or standardized.

Hmmm. Thats an interesting statement. If the specs of a computer language can be considered incomplete and not standardized, what defines a computer language? There must be another entity from which the specs can be considered as incomplete. But there are at most three entities which can serve such a purpose: 1. Digital Mars as the presumable holder of the rights on the specifications, 2. Walter Bright as the presumable CEO of Digital Mars and the author of specs and reference implementation dmd 3. the reference implementation dmd, consisting of an open source front end and a proprietary back end. In an defining sense entities 1 and 2 never gave anything else than specs and reference implementation to the public. Therefore only the sources of the reference implementation can serve as an entity on which the specs can be considered incomplete. But then also the "bugs" currently contained in the reference implementation are part of the language, except one says that according to "bugs" the specs take the lead or---common sense. Because nobody can have rights on common sense, there are currently no other intellectual pieces from which a copyright can be determined than the specs and the reference implementation. But the frond end of the reference implementation is Open Source and gdc shows, that in the back end there are no hidden intellectual pieces to define D. Therefore if the language specification can be considered as incomplete, the only entity from which this can be concluded is the reference implementation, which is Open Soruce and therefore the complete language including the specs must have the same OpenSource license. But this contradicts the opinion of Walter who claims a plain old copyright on the specification of D. Therefore the specs cannot be considered as incomplete. The current specs and only the current specs define the language D. Therefore there cannot be any Open Source D except granted by the current license or explicitely by the holder of the rights. Whithout this grants the only way to establish an Open Source ++D-- is to spin off from the current specs and develop silently until the intellectual rights on the current specs compared to the intellectual rights on the further development are getting marginal. The latter way does not seem to be very promising :-) -manfred
Sep 08 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:29:19 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Derek Parnell wrote:
 
 [...]
 The language specification is neither complete or standardized.

Hmmm. Thats an interesting statement. If the specs of a computer language can be considered incomplete and not standardized, what defines a computer language?

The statements of it's author.
 There must be another entity from which the specs can be considered 
 as incomplete.
 But there are at most three entities which can serve 
 such a purpose:

That turns out not to be the case in every situation. In this specific case, the D specifications themselves declare that there are still pieces to be completed.
 1. Digital Mars as the presumable holder of the rights on the 
 specifications,

Please note that I make a distinction between the specification itself and the document that contains the specification.
 2. Walter Bright as the presumable CEO of Digital Mars and the 
 author of specs and reference implementation dmd

Yes. Currently this is the definitive arbiter of D.
 3. the reference implementation dmd, consisting of an open source 
 front end and a proprietary back end.

Not so, in my opinion. Any attempt at an implementation has the possibility of containing behaviour that is not the behaviour intended by the specification author. Furthermore, the documented specification can itself carry mistakes; that is it could say things that were not intended by the creator of the language.
 In an defining sense entities 1 and 2 never gave anything else than 
 specs and reference implementation to the public.

However, is not wise to assume that the entire specification has been presented to the public until the language creator says it has.
 Therefore only the sources of the reference implementation can 
 serve as an entity on which the specs can be considered incomplete. 

Utter rubbish! The reference implementation in this case, DMD, has many mistakes in it. That is, it does not yet conform to the language specification. DMD has things in it that it should not have (according to the specifications so far), and it omits some things that it should not omit (according to the specifications so far). It is still a work-in-progress, just as the 'official' language specification is.
 But then also the "bugs" currently contained in the reference 
 implementation are part of the language, except one says that 
 according to "bugs" the specs take the lead or---common sense.
 
 Because nobody can have rights on common sense, there are currently 
 no other intellectual pieces from which a copyright can be 
 determined than the specs and the reference implementation.
 
 But the frond end of the reference implementation is Open Source 
 and gdc shows, that in the back end there are no hidden 
 intellectual pieces to define D.
 
 Therefore if the language specification can be considered as 
 incomplete, the only entity from which this can be concluded is the 
 reference implementation, which is Open Soruce and therefore the 
 complete language including the specs must have the same OpenSource 
 license.
 
 But this contradicts the opinion of Walter who claims a plain old 
 copyright on the specification of D.
 
 Therefore the specs cannot be considered as incomplete. The current 
 specs and only the current specs define the language D.
 
 Therefore there cannot be any Open Source D except granted by the 
 current license or explicitely by the holder of the rights.
 
 Whithout this grants the only way to establish an Open Source ++D-- 
 is to spin off from the current specs and develop silently until 
 the intellectual rights on the current specs compared to the 
 intellectual rights on the further development are getting 
 marginal.

I think you are wrong in so many ways. Your logic is based on assumptions that I don't believe are true. Just ask your self this ... Does the currently published language specification accurately reflect the entire definition of the D language according to Walter Bright? I believe the answer to this is - no. -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia 9/09/2005 2:00:08 PM
Sep 08 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dfqh87$kia$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?

time and expertise
 It seems to me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient 
 way of bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy 
 community of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and 
 adding features.

The compiler doesn't worry me. It's the rest of the stuff that I wonder about.
Sep 08 2005
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
of the C++ compiler.

A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
where I can effectively use it"?
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
 of the C++ compiler.
 
 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?
 
 

I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak invalid_utu.fi> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out 
 another drop
 of the C++ compiler.

 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?

I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.

I think Walter should state more explicitly the project guidelines or give more responsibility to the community. Ok, we know Walter maintains the DMD "reference" compiler and the D specs with the help and suggestions of the community. One big problem is the Phobos library. IMO we need to know, if Walter is going to dump Phobos in the near future. We desperately need a standard library that is well designed. Phobos is like a patchwork quilt now - there are no (multilevel) sub-categories like in the Java API, some of the code won't compile and there are inconsistencies in the manual. Since a lot of code in Phobos is in PD, why not make the Phobos totally free. Currently Walter cannot keep pace with all the bugs we file here. Would it be too much to ask Walter to change his tactics in order to speed up the development?
Sep 09 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfrsok$1p33$1 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...
IMO we need to know, if Walter is going to dump Phobos in the near 
future. We desperately need a standard library that is well designed.

If Phobos ends up as the standard library for 1.0, will you use it despite the fact that you don't like it? Personally, I don't intend to, though I may have to reconsider if I ever decide to write an open source application for D. At the moment, I use Ares exclusively, even in its sparse state. But then I don't have time for much outside of Ares anyway :) Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Walter Bright wrote:
 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another drop
 of the C++ compiler.
 
 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?
 
 

I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way.

*raises hand* You said it. I'm working flat-out on shoring up what I feel are massive gaps in D's overall capabilities. But there's so much more to be done than just runtime linking, or enabling D for the web.
 If the dmd 
compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.

I agree with this. If we look outside what additional stuff we want D to have, then the following are things that need to be completed within the existing (de-facto) specification. - The D ABI (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/abi.html) is incomplete, which is a huge obstacle for implementing a runtime code-emit interface or even a whole compiler. Anyone who has ever hacked on D binaries should seriously give this document a once-over. Addendums and extensions should be placed on the Wiki somewhere. - Rooting out bugs. Presently, a good number of the bugs on the bugs newsgroup are likely to be faults in the frontend code. If the community took more time to find out *where* in DMD things fail (and even attempt to patch it), Walter would have a faster turnaround for fixing things; this would push us to V1.0 faster. - Wiki. IMO, the Wiki is underutilized. The community could use things like an almanac (listing of common and uncommon D idioms), and more in-depth proposals for any and all suggested improvements to D (the newsgroup works for collaboration, but is a lousy archive for docs). Walter should be looking through the wiki comments to append to the existing documentation, but at the very least, he has linked the offical docs to the comments sections. I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of anything else right now. For example, I would love to see a self-hosted D compiler. But until we get the basics out of the way, we're quite a way off from that goal. - EricAnderton at yahoo
Sep 09 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfs3vh$1vnu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, pragma says...
- Rooting out bugs.  Presently, a good number of the bugs on the bugs newsgroup
are likely to be faults in the frontend code.  If the community took more time
to find out *where* in DMD things fail (and even attempt to patch it), Walter
would have a faster turnaround for fixing things; this would push us to V1.0
faster.

I've often considered this. I don't suppose the DMD source would compile and run as shipped? Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a 
large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure 
would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd 
compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.

The compiler is one area where I think too many hands could ruin the soup. Small compiler development teams are not uncommon in any case. EDG has a very small group of developers and they develop the reference implementation of C++. Beyond that, just go ahead and do whatever you think should be done. Submitting Phobos changes can feel like a bit of a crapshoot but most make it in eventually. And there's always Ares ;-) Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfrkpk$1hpn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to


 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and


 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another


 of the C++ compiler.

 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?

I think the point/discussion I was trying to get at was that there is a large community of skilled, enthusiastic programmers here who I'm sure would like to help the d cause in a more intimate way. If the dmd compiler needs to stay closed, fine, but use the community.

Many of you *are* helping out!
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:dfrat8$182t$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Any language that is being used is a work in progress. I can point to any
 number of languages with mature, unchanging compilers and specifications,
 they'll be in the "dead language" bin <g>. Heck, I just put out another 
 drop
 of the C++ compiler.

I'm not sure how that relates to my post, but I agree with you.
 A much more interesting question is "is the compiler/language in a state
 where I can effectively use it"?

Or perhaps "are the compiler/language/docs/library/community/tools in a state where I can be effective"? The expectations that programmers have of a "new language" nowadays include many things that have nothing to do with the compiler or language per se.
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:
Isn't gdc a open source implementation of a D compiler ??

What I see missing is at testbed compiler where 
every new idea is implemented and tested.

It should obvious be based on a open framework like gcc 
or LLVM
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/


On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0700, Kyle Furlong wrote:

 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.

Sep 09 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?

I would like to answer with a question. What was the obstacles before Walter to someone else to invent D? Where were the open-source guys? It seems to
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.

The short anwser: "a healthy community of programmers" can't do what a "one man army" can. The long answer: Have you read the forum? Haven't you noticed that everyone here want different things from D. How this could possibly lead to a good language? If Walter respects all this whims D would become a half-scripting-slower-than-java-python-like-syntax-crap! I believe many people are missing the point. Of course everyone can write compile. For one it will be easier for other it will be harder. Hell! Even I can do it. But this is really not the point (in my opinion, of course). Just to have a new so-called language. To have a piece of art like D it takes someone wiser. Whit a lot of experience (not only in programming?). It's like.. you know. When you are kid. Your parents tell you something and you think to yourself "They are wrong! I'm right!".. Then you become (most of us) a little more mature and you see things from a different perspective. Then you think "What a fool I was...". In my modest opinion in this community most of us (I include myself too) are the kids. Walter is the adult (and few other guys too). Yes, it is hard for most people to accept they are wrong... But I think sometimes it is wiser to sit back and wait. Just accept that Walter is right. In most cases time will prove it... D couldn't be what it is without him. I believe that making D open source will ruin it. Of course many people have good suggestions. Even things that Walter missed. And many times Walter accepts these suggestions. I think we have to respect his work the way it is. If someone don't like it - well go and make E. What is the problem with that? If one man can do it then the healthy guys can do it twice as fast and maybe even better... Also what's the problem with GDC?
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
 "a healthy community of programmers" can't do what a "one man army" can.

 
 If one man can do it then the healthy guys can do it twice as fast
 and maybe even better...

I understand that Walter is a very experienced, knowledgeable, intelligent individual and that he has the best in mind for the D language. I also understand that some members of the community are lacking in some of these qualities or have them to a lesser degree. I respect Walter for what he has done so far, its amazing really! All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been coming for 6 years, and has never arrived. I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his 
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were 
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been 
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

Maybe... I don't know...
 
 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.

I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with languages like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming drag-and-drop and I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense. D is actualy reamaning a programming language instead of slow scripting lamers friendly drag and drop gui designer. And after few years when all newborn programmers become a .net or java programmers we, the D programmers, will rule the world because we will be one of the not many left that can do a fast software and low level software like drivers, oses and stuff ;) (I am joking but in same time serious)
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dfs9jb$257v$1 digitaldaemon.com>, bobef says...
 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep up.

I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with languages like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming drag-and-drop and I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense.

It was the same thing during the dotcom boom. But the popular trend has little to do with what's actually being done in a lot of programming houses. And there are many applications that need to employ services that these environments don't provide. Though I grant that both Java and .NET are improving rapidly in some realms that C++ has been a bit stagnant (concurrency, for example). Personally, I think that D is in a somewhat unique position, as it has constructs suiting both a systems language like C and from a higher-level language like Java. For me, the synergy is ideal. Sean
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Ameer Armaly" <ameer_armaly hotmail.com> writes:
"bobef" <bobef lessequal.com> wrote in message 
news:dfs9jb$257v$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his approval, 
 knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were allowed to 
 help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been coming for 6 
 years, and has never arrived.

Maybe... I don't know...
 I get the feeling that the programming world is leaving D behind because 
 the efforts of just one man, however heroic they may be, just cant keep 
 up.

I don't feel left behind. I feel like I am leaving them behind. The programming world is going down driven by microsoft and sun with languages like java and .net bullshit. The programming is becoming drag-and-drop and I am happy that D is left behind this nonsense. D is actualy reamaning a programming language instead of slow scripting lamers friendly drag and drop gui designer. And after few years when all newborn programmers become a .net or java programmers we, the D programmers, will rule the world because we will be one of the not many left that can do a fast software and low level software like drivers, oses and stuff ;) (I am joking but in same time serious)

standard in the unix world from what I've seen is to write *everything* in C, which is nice in some ways, but horribly inconsistent, tricky, and lacking in things like good strings. C++ made things slightly easier, but gave us some real bloated results that weren't all that worth it. Now comes D, withamong other things its great syntax, its great arrays, garbage collection, and a wonderful library with all sorts of functions. I'm willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
I'm 
 willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
 that I program in one of the best languages out there right now. 
 

Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can do *everything* they can do with java or .net (and even better and faster) but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!
Sep 09 2005
parent reply AJG <AJG_member pathlink.com> writes:
Hi,

I'm willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.  

Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can do *everything* they can do with java or .net

Um... I love D and I don't want to knock it, but this statement is patently false. If your implication is that phobos is equivalent to the .NET framework, then you seriously need to reconsider. Here's a quick example: Encryption. Other than hashing, there's nothing even remotely as complete as .NET's. Symmetric, PKI, certificates, etc.
(and even better and faster) 

If you can't even do it in the first place, I doubt you can do it better and faster.
but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!

What is it that you can do in D, that can't be done in C#, C or C++? -------------------- The overall point is: .NET is not BS. It's here today, and it's here to stay. It may be a little clunky here and there, but that's only going to get better. Instead of trying to ignore it as if it were just a fad, it would be better to emulate its strong points. The framework library is one such point. The documentation is another such point. Walter, by himself, cannot achieve this. There is simply not enough time. MS must have who knows how many thousands of code monkeys on payroll writing all this stuff. And for a reason. For every day that Walter dedicates to fixing a web page, or writing a doc page, or some other random task, that's one day of D/compiler improvement lost. Think about it. It's a simple matter of time. Therefore, IMHO, it would be best to delegate some of these tasks to other competent people. I'm sure plenty of qualified members in the community could step up to the job. In that vein, do we really need a few mediocre, sparse, undocumented standard libraries? No. We need _one_ really good one. If you put all these people to work together, this goal would be accomplished. Here are some of the things that can be effectively separated into discrete units: D Specification. Compiler front-end. Compiler back-end. Compiler-bugs. Website. Documentation. Phobos. Phobos-bugs. If Walter can focus on only a fraction of those, then things could really pick up. Well, just my 2 cents. Cheers, --AJG.
Sep 09 2005
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
AJG wrote:
 Hi,
 
 
I'm willing to just forget what the rest of the world says, and be confident 
that I program in one of the best languages out there right now.  

Exactly! Not one of the best, but the best, because I *know* that I can do *everything* they can do with java or .net

Um... I love D and I don't want to knock it, but this statement is patently false. If your implication is that phobos is equivalent to the .NET framework, then you seriously need to reconsider. Here's a quick example: Encryption. Other than hashing, there's nothing even remotely as complete as .NET's. Symmetric, PKI, certificates, etc.
(and even better and faster) 

If you can't even do it in the first place, I doubt you can do it better and faster.
but they can't do what I can with D (or even C/C++)!

What is it that you can do in D, that can't be done in C#, C or C++? -------------------- The overall point is: .NET is not BS. It's here today, and it's here to stay. It may be a little clunky here and there, but that's only going to get better. Instead of trying to ignore it as if it were just a fad, it would be better to emulate its strong points. The framework library is one such point. The documentation is another such point. Walter, by himself, cannot achieve this. There is simply not enough time. MS must have who knows how many thousands of code monkeys on payroll writing all this stuff. And for a reason. For every day that Walter dedicates to fixing a web page, or writing a doc page, or some other random task, that's one day of D/compiler improvement lost. Think about it. It's a simple matter of time. Therefore, IMHO, it would be best to delegate some of these tasks to other competent people. I'm sure plenty of qualified members in the community could step up to the job. In that vein, do we really need a few mediocre, sparse, undocumented standard libraries? No. We need _one_ really good one. If you put all these people to work together, this goal would be accomplished. Here are some of the things that can be effectively separated into discrete units: D Specification. Compiler front-end. Compiler back-end. Compiler-bugs. Website. Documentation. Phobos. Phobos-bugs. If Walter can focus on only a fraction of those, then things could really pick up. Well, just my 2 cents. Cheers, --AJG

Exactly
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
 man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.
Sep 09 2005
next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Some people are waiting for "A 1.0 release of DMD and the D spec, so we can have a long-term stable development platform. "
Sep 10 2005
parent Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
clayasaurus wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
 man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
 approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
 allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
 coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Some people are waiting for "A 1.0 release of DMD and the D spec, so we can have a long-term stable development platform. "

Hey... that's my line! :) -- Chris Sauls
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Ant wrote:
 The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
 I'm always designing around DMD bugs.

Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.
Sep 11 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...

All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Ant wrote:
 The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
 I'm always designing around DMD bugs.

Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.

Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the template not the module). Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful to post.
Sep 10 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Walter Bright wrote:

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...


All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Ant wrote:
The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.

Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.

Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the template not the module). Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful to post.

I'm not speaking as one of the frequent users of D, I am an observer of the newsgroup and I hoped to incite discussion about some of the things that I have noticed. I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by storm, so why hasnt it?
Sep 11 2005
parent reply Rain Dog <Rain_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dg068a$1m7h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Ben Hinkle wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Walter Bright wrote:

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...


All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Ant wrote:
The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.

Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.

Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the template not the module). Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful to post.

I'm not speaking as one of the frequent users of D, I am an observer of the newsgroup and I hoped to incite discussion about some of the things that I have noticed. I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by storm, so why hasnt it?

I agree with you here Kyle. It seems like D is the perfect language, what is holding it back?
Sep 12 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dg4ucj$2htk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Rain Dog says...
In article <dg068a$1m7h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
I guess what I am trying to say is D is capable of taking the world by 
storm, so why hasnt it?

I agree with you here Kyle. It seems like D is the perfect language, what is holding it back?

D doesn't fill a popular niche that's current empty, and it's also pre-1.0. That said, I think D has an attractive feature set for certain kinds of programming, but it's also stuff that will not be too terribly common for A While Yet (lock-free multiprogramming being one example). Sean
Sep 12 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dg01dd$1io1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have
 caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't
 hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private
 (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the
 template not the module).
 Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs
 by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that

 already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter
 might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful
 to post.

It does help when one posts a bug to comment on whether it is a showstopper for their project or not.
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:
 "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dfvo0p$12fo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Walter Bright wrote:

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs229$1u34$1 digitaldaemon.com...


All that said, he *is* just one man, with the time considerations that a
man has. How much better if, under the guidance of Walter and with his
approval, knowledgeable and experienced members of the community were
allowed to help work out bugs and push dmd towards a 1.0 that has been
coming for 6 years, and has never arrived.

D is quite usable as it is, right now. There's no need to wait for a 1.0. D now is far better than most languages are at 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Ant wrote:
The main problem is that I'm desapointed with DMD state,
I'm always designing around DMD bugs.

Ant wrote that in another thread. This is what I am talking about.

Which bugs are causing problems? The only bugs that come to mind that have caused me to rework code are ones about forward declarations and I haven't hit one of those in a while. That and private access can be overly private (eg - private inside a template or parametrized class is private to the template not the module). Also, not that I'm trying to be mean, but I can't find any posts to D.bugs by Kyle Furlong. If there are bugs that are getting in your way that aren't already known then definitely post about it. Even if it is known Walter might not realize the frequency of the bug and so it would still be useful to post.

One example: templates in an object file that are later stored added to a library (on windows)... nasty errors unless you do a workaround (thanks to Walter for revealing that workaround; otherwise, everybody would be clueless ). It will get people every time unless the problem is obviously documented which I don't think it is currently. The workaround is effective but unattractive and meaningless to code readers unless documented. While I know that this is a problem in the OMF format that's not going away anytime soon (linux elf is unaffected), it's things like this that are annoying. I think Ant could list several "workrounds" that are necessary. These problems aren't necessarily consistant across platforms either. Another is non-obvious uses of extern( ) with function pointers and delegates. Can't use the extern keyword inside function scope (so all internal functions are only D type). You can create an anonymous function but can't declare it's calling convention which makes what I consider one of its primary advantages in windows/c callbacks untenable. Just a couple things off the top of my head. -JJR
Sep 10 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier?

There _is_ an open source D compiler. Go check out GDC http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.
 It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.

I am affraid you are overestimating us, or underestimating the art of compiler construction / language design. D is as much a one man show as it is because, given the above open source D compiler, so few people have the capacity or ability to fix bugs or add features. IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D? And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go ahead :-) Bastiaan.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
 IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask 
 himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?

The key question is who defines "improve"?
 And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
 ahead :-)

The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire modules. Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the library is scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized development of phobos has lead to an unorganized phobos.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:
IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should ask 
himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?

The key question is who defines "improve"?

That's easy: the one doing the improvement, and the ones using a patched compiler :-)
And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
ahead :-)

The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire modules. Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the library is scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized development of phobos has lead to an unorganized phobos.

The original post was about the compiler, not the library -- although I admit that the latter plays an important role in the applicability of the language. Agreed that patches to the frontend are even sparser, but there are no real obstacles that I can see to developing a D compiler or library the open-source way... Still, organising development and obtaining structure is non-trivial, but there are open source projects that are equally challenging and do succeed in this. If submitted patches are slow to appear in official DMD releases, maybe we should have a repository of patches on some wiki or so, so that people can apply them themselves? If you look at the Linux kernel for example, many patches get used long before they get accepted into the mainline kernel. We could have an equivalent to for example http://lwn.net/Articles/149221/ at the bottom of the page. Also in analogy to Linux kernel development, someone could maintain an alternative GDC tree with selected patches applied, to make it easier to test them and encourage acceptance into the mainline. :-) Bastiaan.
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Ben Hinkle wrote:
 
 IMHO, anyone who sees deficiencies in Walter's handling of D should 
 ask himself: why don't I just go ahead and improve D?

The key question is who defines "improve"?

That's easy: the one doing the improvement, and the ones using a patched compiler :-)
 And, the changelog shows that Walter is accepting patches, so just go 
 ahead :-)

The patches so far have been pretty small or they have been entire modules. Which leads to the problem that the overall structure of the library is scattered - each module has its own style. Unorganized development of phobos has lead to an unorganized phobos.

The original post was about the compiler, not the library -- although I admit that the latter plays an important role in the applicability of the language. Agreed that patches to the frontend are even sparser, but there are no real obstacles that I can see to developing a D compiler or library the open-source way... Still, organising development and obtaining structure is non-trivial, but there are open source projects that are equally challenging and do succeed in this. If submitted patches are slow to appear in official DMD releases, maybe we should have a repository of patches on some wiki or so, so that people can apply them themselves? If you look at the Linux kernel for example, many patches get used long before they get accepted into the mainline kernel. We could have an equivalent to for example http://lwn.net/Articles/149221/ at the bottom of the page. Also in analogy to Linux kernel development, someone could maintain an alternative GDC tree with selected patches applied, to make it easier to test them and encourage acceptance into the mainline. :-) Bastiaan.

Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?
Sep 11 2005
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?

What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/. Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, it is his baby. Bastiaan.
Sep 10 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 
 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?

What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/. Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, it is his baby. Bastiaan.

Yes I meant version controled repository. Any serious collaborative programming project needs one.
Sep 11 2005
parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 
 Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Is there even a public repository for GDC at the moment?

What do you mean? The source (and everything else GDC) is at http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/. Do you mean a version controlled repository? Not that I know of. If it makes contributing easier, I am sure Brad would not mind setting up a subversion repository for it on dsource.org. Talk with David about it, it is his baby. Bastiaan.

Yes I meant version controled repository. Any serious collaborative programming project needs one.

What it needs more is collaborators... My guess is that David does not see the need for a version controlled public repository without collaborators. And you are overstating the importance of such a repository. It does not take a repository to post a patch if you have one -- the Linux kernel has been developed without a repository for many years, only a news group... And a news group we have. Bastiaan.
Sep 11 2005
prev sibling parent reply J Thomas <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go 
for it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
_organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the 
idea. also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is 
another reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....



Kyle Furlong wrote:
 What are the obstacles to writing an open source D complier? It seems to 
 me that having D be a one man show is not the most efficient way of 
 bringing D into the mainstream, seeing as there is a healthy community 
 of programmers here who all could lend a hand fixing bugs and adding 
 features.

Sep 11 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go for 
 it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
 work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

 Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
 a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
 and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

 What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
 _organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
 the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
 class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
 disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
 also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
 reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....

You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares project in particular, which aims to replace phobos. Personally I believe phobos is fixable and a new external standard library isn't needed. I don't want Walter to spend time fixing phobos, though (or the doc). Since Walter is the code maintainer I don't feel comfortable discussing, designing, coding and sending him "serious" patches only to get an email at the end with "sorry I don't want to do that" or something - which is how the process works today. For example there were lots of ideas in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/20858.html and subsequent threads about phobos changes that never got "the green light" so they never even really went to the design/discussion phase. So I've only been sending small changes to individual modules that clean up small issues - but the big issues still remain.
Sep 11 2005
next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:
 "J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
 news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 
If you want to write an open source compiler,nobodys stopping you; go for 
it. I dont see the point in trying to reinvent Walters
work when theres so much cool stuff to write in D.

Personally, Im not concerned with the compiler. I think Walter is doing
a very good job, considering. Im more concerned with the class libraries
and tools. As the tools evolve so will the compiler.

What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
_organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....

You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares project in particular, which aims to replace phobos. Personally I believe phobos is fixable and a new external standard library isn't needed. <snip>

Personally, I think dsource is seriously disorganize. Most projects are being worked on by people who "have lives too"; development can be pretty slow. Another thing is, there are several "library" projects .. these need to be orgenized into a standard library or "API" so to speak. I'd love to see a huge and collective library like the Java API and/or the .NET framework. I personally am not much familiar with .NET, but I am familiar with Java, and the Java API is one of the (if not the only) powerful features about java that pushes me to use the language. I regret to say this, but I use java alot more than I use D, and the only reason is the extensive API. I think What we need is very few people (possibly one person?) with leadership qualities who have/has a vision and can organize and lead an open library/API project in which the whole community can participate in and/or contribute to.
Sep 11 2005
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dg17cq$2e66$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
"J Thomas" <jtd514 ameritech.net> wrote in message 
news:dg13nb$2bff$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 What I think we need to do is stop talking about walter and actually
 _organize_ an open source community for the serious developers; develop
 the systems and tools that D needs. develop a community roadmap for the
 class libraries and tools. I dont expect walter to organize the 
 disorganized and write a great compiler. Anyway, i think you get the idea. 
 also a real forum to discuss this stuff would be nice, which is another 
 reason we should organize outside of the digital mars newsgroup.....

You might want to check out dsource http://www.dsource.org and the ares project in particular, which aims to replace phobos.

For what it's worth, I think one aspect of the Ares project could be useful whether it succeeds or not. That is, since Ares does aim to be a full-featured standard library, it needs to be well documented and it has to run on DMD/GDC pretty much seamlessly. Thus, one of the first goals was to clean up, separate, and formalize/document the interface between the standard library, the garbage collector, and the compiler runtime (which are currently somewhat interdependent in Phobos)--which basically means that I've been cleaning up and formalizing the interactions between different portions of Phobos. If you really wanted to, you could take Phobos.std, drop it on the Ares core, and it would pretty much Just Work. Sean
Sep 11 2005