• Clay Smith (53/53) Dec 02 2009 Disclaimer: Within a finite amount of time, I wrote this quickly, fully
• Walter Bright (2/3) Dec 02 2009 Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.
• BCS (2/8) Dec 04 2009 Did he ever finish it? Is it mantained? Did he ever publish his code?
• Denis Koroskin (3/11) Dec 04 2009 http://dnet.codeplex.com
• BCS (2/18) Dec 04 2009 "sort of", "not exactly" and "yes". 1 of 3.
• Jesse Phillips (4/16) Dec 04 2009 Quite simply, the answer is yes:
• Chad J (5/7) Dec 02 2009 http://da.vidr.cc/projects/lljvm/
• Justin Johansson (6/8) Dec 03 2009 Nice disclaimer.

Clay Smith <clay.smith.r gmail.com> writes:

Disclaimer: Within a finite amount of time, I wrote this quickly, fully 
explaining the finer details would take a lonnng time ;)

Concise Summary:
D language popularity can increase dramatically if:
* C++ support is improved
* D is ported to .Net
* D is ported to JVM
* Driver-run grassroots marketing campaign (kind of like intelligent 
spam or context-sensative ads, where the driver is the central machine 
that tells where to advertise and when and how, etc, and people would 
post on different sites. The driver machine could be a community member 
who organizes this campaign on a wiki, and D citizens could carry out 
the deed.)

Long post:

Maybe this is just stating the obvious, but if popularity is really what 
D wants then features are not the choke point or problem with D 
adoption, I see the choke points as

* How well does this language interact with others?
* How stable is this language ?

I think the D language can make great strides by riding piggy back on

* .NET MSIL (Doesn't exist?)
* JVM (Doesn't exist?)
* C++ (D 2.0 implementing this somewhat)
* C (already done)

The fact is that no one wants to re-invent the wheel, I would never have 
used D if not for the fact that it can ride on C's progress. Similarly, 
it is very feasible to have D run on top of C++, MSIL, and JVM.

Great progress have been made in both the .NET and Java libraries, and I 
suspect D or a similar language would do well there.


halfway decent, but it would increase D adoption anyways.

D on JVM on the other hand, if it's possible then I think it can be a 
big hit. You can say there are fundamental philosophical differences 
between JVM and D, but I see it as a way to increase D adoption. Then 
suggest move to mainline D when speed is a greater concern.

Now, I'm not the one to do this work anytime soon, but perhaps it is a 
good idea to remind others. I think language adoption comes from

1. How well the language interacts with existing technologies (Only can 
interact with C and C++ with a lot of effort, no MSIL or Java interaction)
2. How useful the language itself it (D is already incredibly useful)
3. Language stability (Rapid growth is a good start, however without 
stability its like trying to build a building on a fault-line )
4. Massive marketing machine (D's actually doing decent in this)

Looking at these points it becomes obvious why languages are successful. 
Interpreted languages have gotten away with not requiring too much 

products with a good amount of hype behind them. C had AT&T and was 
actually useful, and C++ became popular on the sole fact that it 
extended C.

Now we have D, which talks to C and therefore the next "C".

access to these languages libraries.

- Clay

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Clay Smith wrote:
 * D is ported to .Net

Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Walter,

 Clay Smith wrote:
 
 * D is ported to .Net
 

 Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.
 

Did he ever finish it? Is it mantained? Did he ever publish his code?

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:46:53 +0300, BCS <none anon.com> wrote:

 Hello Walter,

 Clay Smith wrote:

 * D is ported to .Net

 Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.

 Did he ever finish it? Is it mantained? Did he ever publish his code?

http://dnet.codeplex.com

It's for D2.0, not sure what exactly version it's based on, though.

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Denis,

 On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:46:53 +0300, BCS <none anon.com> wrote:
 
 Hello Walter,
 
 Clay Smith wrote:
 
 * D is ported to .Net
 

 Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.
 

 Did he ever finish it? Is it mantained? Did he ever publish his code?
 

 http://dnet.codeplex.com
 
 It's for D2.0, not sure what exactly version it's based on, though.
 

"sort of", "not exactly" and "yes". 1 of 3.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

BCS Wrote:

 Hello Walter,
 
 Clay Smith wrote:
 
 * D is ported to .Net
 

 Cristian Vlasceanu already ported D to .NET.
 

 
 Did he ever finish it? Is it mantained? Did he ever publish his code?
 
 

Quite simply, the answer is yes:

http://dnet.codeplex.com/

umm, but probably not finished.

Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:

Clay Smith wrote:
 ...
 * D is ported to JVM

http://da.vidr.cc/projects/lljvm/
Of course this doesn't mean it exists, but may just be a good lead for
someone who wants to make it happen.  Just make ldc use this, and
eventually write java library backends for the std libs.

Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:

Clay Smith wrote:
 Disclaimer: Within a finite amount of time, I wrote this quickly, fully 
 explaining the finer details would take a lonnng time ;)

Nice disclaimer.

Are you aware of the phrase, variously attributed to Shaw, Russell, and
Pascal: "Please excuse the length of this letter; I do not have time to
be brief." :-)

Justin Johansson