www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D language and .NET platform

reply "EngineerSpock" <fofanov1988 bk.ru> writes:
There is a couple of questions.

1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?
2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?
3. Can I write code on pure D and then compile it to MSIL and use 
it further in .NET environment?
4. Are there many libraries for D? Can D just use C\C++ dll's 
without pain for programmer?

Thank you in advance)))
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 29-07-2012 17:30, EngineerSpock wrote:
 There is a couple of questions.

 1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?

You should be able to write C routines in D that .NET's P/Invoke can call.
 2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?

D for .NET is dead because .NET is too limited to represent the language, so describing this isn't really worthwhile. :)
 3. Can I write code on pure D and then compile it to MSIL and use it
 further in .NET environment?

No. Sorry to ruin your hope, but D on .NET is a dead end.
 4. Are there many libraries for D? Can D just use C\C++ dll's without
 pain for programmer?

 Thank you in advance)))

-- Alex Rønne Petersen alex lycus.org http://lycus.org
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever). -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex lycus.org http://lycus.org
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 07/29/2012 06:32 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

I think all of CTFE-D should map to .NET without much hassle. struct ArraySlice<T>{ private T[] storage; private ulong start; private ulong len; public ArraySlice<T> slice(ulong a, ulong b){ if(a>b||b>len) throw new BoundsError("..."); return new ArraySlice<T>(storage, start+a, b-a); } public ulong length(){ return len; } public Pointer<T> ptr(){ return new Pointer<T>(storage, start); } // ... } Performance will suffer of course.
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 07/29/2012 07:00 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 07/29/2012 06:32 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

I think all of CTFE-D should map to .NET without much hassle.

This could get a little hairy: struct S{ int x,y; } void main(){ S s; auto p = &s.y; // ... } It would have to be translated to something like (pseudo-code) class S{ int x; int y; S copy(){...} } class SyPointer : Pointer<int> { private S instance; override int deref(){ return instance.y; } override void derefAssign(int y){ instance.y = y; } } Out of the window goes native value type support.
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
On 07/29/2012 01:11 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 07/29/2012 07:00 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 07/29/2012 06:32 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

I think all of CTFE-D should map to .NET without much hassle.

This could get a little hairy: struct S{ int x,y; } void main(){ S s; auto p = &s.y; // ... } It would have to be translated to something like (pseudo-code) class S{ int x; int y; S copy(){...} } class SyPointer : Pointer<int> { private S instance; override int deref(){ return instance.y; } override void derefAssign(int y){ instance.y = y; } } Out of the window goes native value type support.

I still always thought it funny that we didn't reach for it anyways. It seems like the VMs can weaken performance significantly, but they should always be able to implement D's semantics. It's a matter of finding effective hacks.
Jul 29 2012
parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Chad J wrote:

 I still always thought it funny that we didn't reach for it anyways.

"we"? Surely you meant you ("I"). Hmm? You saw the movie (?). "The Quick, and the Dead". You cannot be quick, for you are not "quick". Thank you, you are not a gunslinger. (Romance, timeout please). "They" "love" the quick shooter, huh. Analogyy to "those who gab, have nothing to say"? (I don't know 'analogy' from 'metaphor'). What does "reach for it" mean? Something about 1984 chimes true. Oh, but "they" "didn't know". Isn't *that* convenient. Because if you as an individual don't know, it is a crime. But if those in on the take do wrong, it's a free ride to being the next horror, and it becomes "law".
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Timon Gehr wrote:

 This could get a little hairy:

A boy's dream?
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:11:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
 This could get a little hairy:

 struct S{
     int x,y;
 }

 void main(){
     S s;
     auto p = &s.y;
     // ...
 }

How does C++ for .NET handle this?

It didn't. Microsoft is about to do that. I'm thinking I should be a little asheamed. What do you think?
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 07/29/2012 06:32 PM, Alex Rnne Petersen wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rnne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

I think all of CTFE-D should map to .NET without much hassle.

No, you cannot wank as an adolescent forever. There are too many males and you know it so you are afraid of "growing up", but it really is not up to you.
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 29-07-2012 18:51, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
 On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:32:08 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen
 <alex lycus..org> wrote:

 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

So one couldn't simply use a two-level system, with a slice referencing an array, and holding an offset and a length?

That could work, but it wouldn't be compatible with D as it is now. -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex lycus.org http://lycus.org
Jul 29 2012
parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
EngineerSpock wrote:
 And what can you say about this:
 http://dnet.codeplex.com/

You came to the right group: buy your dildo here.
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
David Piepgrass wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 16:32:10 UTC, Alex Rnne Petersen
 wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 .NET is too limited to represent the language,


because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

D is theoretically designed

That is to say it is non-designed.
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Alex Rnne Petersen wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:30, EngineerSpock wrote:
 There is a couple of questions.

 1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?

You should be able to write C routines in D that .NET's P/Invoke can call.
 2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?

D for .NET is dead because .NET is too limited to represent the language, so describing this isn't really worthwhile. :)

That is "a lie" (save for you may not know). .net is a Microsoft product at the API-ish level. It "strikes a cord" with "real" programmers, surely. Alex needs to be more careful when he posts. .net is not dead. Not even NOT relevant for D. D is at the language level. (AKA, "the language level"). "It", cannot address higher level concerns, for it is not even evolved or relevant as a child. "Lord of the Flies" and D, have something in common? Learning perhaps? Is D an island of childish thought "promogulated" with the zeal of an adolescent "guitar hero", "re"inventing "rock-n-roll" and wanking his pecker? The island is overloaded with comers. "freedom reigns", and then you grow up. Then what? The drug stops. You realize your enemy is formidable. Your scope has been small. But your enemy knew that all along. And you might even realize that pissing in the wind and beating it, was your same old spiel. The wind is not your enemy. And neither is time. You battle, and are too quick to battle, that which you do not know. I assure you that all you battle is time. And time is not interested in your childish games. You are going to lose. A war that does not exist, save for only your "lordness", which begs the question is D a lemon tree worthy of pissing on? I think it is dismissabke without conjecture. Exclude the masturbatory adolescnet males and you have... tada! What? Nothing? Guitar hero. Lord of the flies? Close this wank room.
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rnne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why?

He's playing you, sucker.
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Alex Rønne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On 7/30/2012 12:30 AM, EngineerSpock wrote:
 There is a couple of questions.

 4. Are there many libraries for D? Can D just use C\C++ dll's without
 pain for programmer?

There are a number of libraries covering different domains, some active some not. Also, D is binary compatible with C, so you can use existing C libraries with D (see Derelict[1] and Deimos[2] for examples). There's also some support for binding with C++, but AFAIK it's not as reliable as the C interface due to incompatibilities between C++ compilers. There are also going to be limitations regarding certain C++ features. I /assume/ it will mostly work with DMC and GCC. But someone else will have to tell you how usable it is. [1] https://github.com/aldacron/Derelict3 [2] https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos
Jul 29 2012
parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:
 On 7/30/2012 12:30 AM, EngineerSpock wrote:
 There is a couple of questions.

 4. Are there many libraries for D? Can D just use C\C++ dll's without
 pain for programmer?

There are a number of libraries covering different domains,

More ammo for a war that does not exist?
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:32:08 +0200, Alex R=C3=B8nne Petersen <alex lycus=
.org>  =

wrote:

 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex R=C3=B8nne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them becaus=

 it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers=

 in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object=

 by reference to a function, or whatever).

So one couldn't simply use a two-level system, with a slice referencing = an array, and holding an offset and a length? -- = Simen
Jul 29 2012
parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
 On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:32:08 +0200, Alex Rnne Petersen
 <alex lycus.org> wrote:

 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 Alex Rnne Petersen:

 .NET is too limited to represent the language,

Can you tell us why? Bye, bearophile

Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

So one couldn't simply use a two-level system, with a slice referencing an array, and holding an offset and a length?

D is a programming language. Why don't you go to your metrosexual sushi bar and "talk programming", bitch?
Jul 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "EngineerSpock" <fofanov1988 bk.ru> writes:
And what can you say about this:
http://dnet.codeplex.com/
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:36:51 UTC, EngineerSpock wrote:
 And what can you say about this:
 http://dnet.codeplex.com/

I can say the last commit was 3 years ago. Make your own conclusions.
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "David Piepgrass" <qwertie256 gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 16:32:10 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen 
wrote:
 On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
 .NET is too limited to represent the language,


because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

D is theoretically designed for precise GC, too. But in .NET you can only have a reference to an array as a whole, so a slice must be represented as an array, offset and length. The real problem I see is that in D you can have a slice that does *not* refer to an array on the GC heap, such as a slice on a non-GC heap, or on the stack (currently, in fact, in D you can easily make pointers and slices that point to stack data to outlive the stack frame, which the 'safe' .NET type system inherently prevents). .NET allows one to break the type system using pointers (in functions marked 'unsafe'), so as far as I can tell D for .NET could theoretically do everything that native D does, but with some annoying caveats mainly related to garbage collection. For instance, in a slice, I believe you can't use the same memory word to refer to an array on the GC heap OR an array that is not on the GC heap (unless you want to pin all your arrays, and you really don't). IIUC, doing so can crash the garbage collector. I'm thinking that a .NET D slice would be implemented as a reference to a GC array and two integers (start and length). If the slice refers to a non-GC array, it would be stored in the same space, as a null reference, a pointer cast to IntPtr, and a length. However, this would make the code for accessing a slice rather clumsy and/or inefficient. .NET has other limitations too, but again I expect there would be workarounds.
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:11:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
 This could get a little hairy:

 struct S{
     int x,y;
 }

 void main(){
     S s;
     auto p = &s.y;
     // ...
 }

How does C++ for .NET handle this?
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling parent "ProHeckler" <ph2030 yourfuture.com> writes:
EngineerSpock wrote:
 There is a couple of questions.

 1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?

What about "it"? Are you a software developer or a Microsoft bitch?
 2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?

There is no "D for .net". If you want that, pick your crime, do it, go to prison and ... nevermind.
 3. Can I write code on pure D and then compile it to MSIL and use
 it further in .NET environment?

Lame try troll. Your point was: "Is .net formidable?". If you work for Microsoft you hope so.
 4. Are there many libraries for D?

I can't answer that: I don't know.
  Can D just use C\C++ dll's
 without pain for programmer?

Hopefully not. (I'll expect my check in the mail for such promotion Ders). :P
 Thank you in advance)))

That was trite.
Jul 29 2012