www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop

reply Gabe McArthur <Gabe_member pathlink.com> writes:
You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the language.
I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
the first of those people.

So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own project
sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).

If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so: gnu.for.d
AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.

'If you organize it...they will come'

Salud!
Gabe McArthur
Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:11:20 +1000, Gabe McArthur  
<Gabe_member pathlink.com> wrote:

 You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the  
 main D
 thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the  
 language.
 I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat  
 around
 and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned  
 that I
 had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you  
 don't risk
 looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything

 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.

And how is this different, or an improvement, over Dsource.org ? -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the 
best interest of the language.
Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial 
projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.

Gabe McArthur wrote:
 You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
 thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the
language.
 I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
 and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
 had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
 looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
 afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
 that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
 the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
 at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
 that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
 plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
 and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
 the first of those people.
 
 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
 movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
 the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
 homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
 check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
project
 sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
 feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
 think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
 our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).
 
 If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so:
gnu.for.d
 AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
 maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.
 
 'If you organize it...they will come'
 
 Salud!
 Gabe McArthur
 
 

Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
Without GNU, Without the miracle of Linux, Apache, Firefox.

We need a miracle of D, and GNU can make it.


"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> 
??????:e2u4ob$v42$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the 
 best interest of the language.
 Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial 
 projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.

Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:
 Without GNU, Without the miracle of Linux, Apache, Firefox.
 
 We need a miracle of D, and GNU can make it.
 
 
 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> 
 ??????:e2u4ob$v42$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the 
best interest of the language.
Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial 
projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.


Perhaps I didn't understand that correctly, but GNU will not bring along a miracle ... it's a freaking license, for bobs sake. Willing contributors are what make a difference. Have you contributed anything significant to D? How about the "gabe" person? Anything there? All this fuss over a viral license, when those currently writing vast quantities of useful D libs are making everything completely open? What on earth is the point to this thread? GNU saves the day? Stallman saves my Sister? If you want to get something organized, you're probably gonna need some respect first. Not some mojo from a book "gabe" just read. Again, you might consider helping out at dsource instead. Last time I looked, there were no entrace fees
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
Yes, the license is not most important. The most import is the that many 
professional developers
can take part in, improving the compiler and library, and not only a 
watcher.

And now, Walter is an "autarch", the others just suggest, suggest, suggest, 
and the result nobody known.

May be Brad, you can

-------------------------
I'm not a expert of D, and even a newbie on development of windows.


"Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> 
??????:Pine.LNX.4.64.0604281914330.2422 bellevue.puremagic.com...
 An odd statement, since GNU has nothing to do with Apache or Firefox.
 Linux does use the GNU license, and the OS's that build on top of the
 kernel use a ton of GNU tools, which are important, sure.  But let's try
 to leave religious debates (licenses, editors, etc) out of this, they're
 counter productive.

 What D needs is people to _do_ stuff, not just talk about.  Work together
 to improve what exists.  Don't fork off and start new, competing, projects
 and websites.  Find something that exists already and improve upon it.
 If something that needs to exist but doesn't, sure, start something new.

 We don't need yet another wiki site.  We don't need yet another project
 repository.  We do need people contributing to both.  If you have issues
 with how a part of the community is running, let's work to improve it.

 So, wanna help?  Do something, but do it constructively.

 Later,
 Brad

 On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Boris Wang wrote:

 Without GNU, Without the miracle of Linux, Apache, Firefox.

 We need a miracle of D, and GNU can make it.


 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com>
 ??????:e2u4ob$v42$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the
 best interest of the language.
 Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial
 projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.



Apr 28 2006
prev sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brad Roberts schrieb am 2006-04-29:
 What D needs is people to _do_ stuff, not just talk about.

<snip>
 So, wanna help?  Do something, but do it constructively.

German proverb: "Es gibt nichts Gutes, ausser man tut es." Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEUxJ33w+/yD4P9tIRArAGAKCUApzeJHUGl/PQwX7OEYreIab1zACfdOel 9MR1dchQmOe/U2Xugo/KliM= =2Vgu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
An odd statement, since GNU has nothing to do with Apache or Firefox.  
Linux does use the GNU license, and the OS's that build on top of the 
kernel use a ton of GNU tools, which are important, sure.  But let's try 
to leave religious debates (licenses, editors, etc) out of this, they're 
counter productive.

What D needs is people to _do_ stuff, not just talk about.  Work together 
to improve what exists.  Don't fork off and start new, competing, projects 
and websites.  Find something that exists already and improve upon it.  
If something that needs to exist but doesn't, sure, start something new.

We don't need yet another wiki site.  We don't need yet another project 
repository.  We do need people contributing to both.  If you have issues 
with how a part of the community is running, let's work to improve it.

So, wanna help?  Do something, but do it constructively.

Later,
Brad

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Boris Wang wrote:

 Without GNU, Without the miracle of Linux, Apache, Firefox.
 
 We need a miracle of D, and GNU can make it.
 
 
 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> 
 ??????:e2u4ob$v42$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the 
 best interest of the language.
 Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial 
 projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.


Apr 28 2006
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:

 I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the 
 best interest of the language.

You are not using GCC then ? :-O
 Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial 
 projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.

But isn't DMD already doing this ? --anders
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:
 You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
 thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the
language.
 I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
 and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
 had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
 looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
 afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
 that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
 the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
 at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
 that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
 plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
 and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
 the first of those people.
 
 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
 movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
 the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
 homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
 check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
project
 sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
 feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
 think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
 our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).
 
 If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so:
gnu.for.d
 AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
 maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.
 
 'If you organize it...they will come'
 
 Salud!
 Gabe McArthur
 
 

ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment. Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)
Apr 28 2006
parent reply Gabe McArthur <Gabe_member pathlink.com> writes:
ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.

Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)

Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous repositories. I'm talking about conformity and organization. Standardized libraries. A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools. A debugger (GDB). Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole. This is so that as the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people everywhere to work with D becomes lower. Further, it will work off a standard development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly than any one person. Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized volunteers. As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed under the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code. Take a look at Mono for crying out loud. Their runtime and compiler are both GPL. And that's not even necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL. The community can decide as to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the MIT or BSD liscenses). Besides, until big time companies actually have a working collection of tools and a coherent library, getting corporate backing seems somewhat moot. Look at the Linux kernel -- we have absolutely no conception of how much corporate money goes into the kernel every year (it's on the order of 10's of millions, to be sure), and they don't seem to have huge concerns about contributing back to the community -- if they did, the kernel wouldn't have grown as it has!
Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:
ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.

Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)

Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous repositories. I'm talking about conformity and organization. Standardized libraries.

If you actually take a look around, you'd find that such things have been under way for quite a long time. A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools. A debugger
 (GDB).  Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole.  This is so that as
 the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people
 everywhere to work with D becomes lower.  Further, it will work off a standard
 development model, where the community can move and contribute much more
quickly
 than any one person.  Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's
 just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized
 volunteers.

Yes, we've been trying to get full debug support (from the compiler) for, er, a couple of years or more. GDB currently works alongside GDC, with symbol demangling and so on. Sure, it could be better. However, you clearly imply there is no such "organized group of volunteers". This shows a certain ignorance in the matter.
 As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed under
 the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without
 necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code.  Take a look at Mono for
 crying out loud.  Their runtime and compiler are both GPL.  And that's not even
 necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL.  The community can decide
as
 to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the MIT
 or BSD liscenses).

:-D As I understand it, all the code on dsource.org is completely "OPEN". No viral licenses. That's what the D community, thus far, has chosen to do ... we feel that's better for "the corporate angle" you mention [snip] BTW: firing up some rabid GPL/LGPL site to compete with dsource.org seems like an attempt to /split/ the community, rather than coalesce it. Perhaps you'd care to support dsource instead?
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:44:31 +1000, Gabe McArthur  
<Gabe_member pathlink.com> wrote:

 ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.

 Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)

Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous repositories. I'm talking about conformity and organization. Standardized libraries. A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools. A debugger (GDB). Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole. This is so that as the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people everywhere to work with D becomes lower. Further, it will work off a standard development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly than any one person. Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized volunteers.

I just don't get it ... sorry. Dsource can already support such projects, so why do you want to create a competing site? That just helps fragment the D community, which sounds like the very thing you are trying not to do. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
"Gabe McArthur" <Gabe_member pathlink.com>
дϢ:e2u5sf$109e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.

Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)

Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous repositories. I'm talking about conformity and organization. Standardized libraries. A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools. A debugger (GDB). Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole. This is so that as the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people everywhere to work with D becomes lower. Further, it will work off a standard development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly than any one person. Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized volunteers.

Yes!
 As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed 
 under
 the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without
 necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code.  Take a look at Mono 
 for
 crying out loud.  Their runtime and compiler are both GPL.  And that's not 
 even
 necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL.  The community can 
 decide as
 to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the 
 MIT
 or BSD liscenses).

 Besides, until big time companies actually have a working collection of 
 tools
 and a coherent library, getting corporate backing seems somewhat moot. 
 Look at
 the Linux kernel -- we have absolutely no conception of how much corporate 
 money
 goes into the kernel every year (it's on the order of 10's of millions, to 
 be
 sure), and they don't seem to have huge concerns about contributing back 
 to the
 community -- if they did, the kernel wouldn't have grown as it has!

 

Apr 28 2006
parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:

Ah, "Boris" and "Gabe" are the same person ;)
Apr 28 2006
parent "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
May be.

I'm from china, who are Gabe? :)


"kris" <foo bar.com> ??????:e2uj4p$1fq7$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:

 Ah, "Boris" and "Gabe" are the same person ;) 

Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:

 You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the
 main D thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of
 the language. I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so
 -- and I sat around
 and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned
 that I had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you
 don't risk
 looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was
 also afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent
 critiques, or that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group
 devoted to the ideals of
 the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes
 between 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by
 Richard Stallman
 at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From
 reading that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to
 step up to the plate and provide those of us in the community who like D,
 a place to organize
 and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one
 of the first of those people.
 
 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
 movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects
 (including the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts,
 customizable project
 homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
 check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
 project
 sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining
 what I
 feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of
 liscenses, I think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our
 libraries and the GPL for our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an
 IDE).
 
 If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so:
 gnu.for.d
 AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make
 building, maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share
 in.
 
 'If you organize it...they will come'
 
 Salud!
 Gabe McArthur

DSource do currently have forums, svn and Trac. Oh, and quite a few existing projects. And Brad is a really great guy. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource & #D: larsivi
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:
 You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
 thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the
language.
 I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
 and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
 had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
 looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
 afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
 that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
 the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
 at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
 that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
 plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
 and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
 the first of those people.
 
 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
 movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
 the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
 homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
 check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
project
 sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
 feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
 think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
 our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).
 
 If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so:
gnu.for.d
 AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
 maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.
 
 'If you organize it...they will come'
 
 Salud!
 Gabe McArthur
 
 

I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to work.
Apr 28 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, 
 just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to 
 work.

Gabe isn't a troll. I've never known a troll to purchase a domain name and set up a web site on it for that purpose: http://www.gnu-d.org I do think he's enthusiastic, and that's great! It's good for any community to have enthusiastic new members with ideas, especially if those ideas are disruptive. We should always be ready to reexamine our assumptions about what we're doing to make sure we're not deluding ourselves or overlooking the obvious. For example, Gabe believes there is something wrong with the licensing for D, something that the GPL or LGPL would fix. I don't understand this, as the front end is GPL, gdc is fully GPL, and Phobos is either public domain or a far less restrictive license than even LGPL. I saw a similar comment on Digg. So something is giving the impression that D has a restrictive license. I want to find out what that is, and fix it. He's proposed establishing a wiki for D. There are already several (listed on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dlinks.html). If those are inadequate, I want to know why. I think he's overlooked Dsource. That's probably my fault, as the link to it is buried. I've now put a link to it on the front page. Some of his comments are spot on, like the documentation being not good enough. Gabe can be a valuable contributor. I hope he sticks around and helps out where his interests lead him.
Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
[snip]
 I think he's overlooked Dsource. That's probably my fault, as the link 
 to it is buried. I've now put a link to it on the front page.

At long last :)
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's 
 sake, just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, 
 and get to work.

Gabe isn't a troll. I've never known a troll to purchase a domain name and set up a web site on it for that purpose: http://www.gnu-d.org I do think he's enthusiastic, and that's great! It's good for any community to have enthusiastic new members with ideas, especially if those ideas are disruptive. We should always be ready to reexamine our assumptions about what we're doing to make sure we're not deluding ourselves or overlooking the obvious. For example, Gabe believes there is something wrong with the licensing for D, something that the GPL or LGPL would fix. I don't understand this, as the front end is GPL, gdc is fully GPL, and Phobos is either public domain or a far less restrictive license than even LGPL. I saw a similar comment on Digg. So something is giving the impression that D has a restrictive license. I want to find out what that is, and fix it. He's proposed establishing a wiki for D. There are already several (listed on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dlinks.html). If those are inadequate, I want to know why. I think he's overlooked Dsource. That's probably my fault, as the link to it is buried. I've now put a link to it on the front page. Some of his comments are spot on, like the documentation being not good enough. Gabe can be a valuable contributor. I hope he sticks around and helps out where his interests lead him.

You are right, I was premature with the troll accusation.
Apr 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 For example, Gabe believes there is something wrong with the licensing 
 for D, something that the GPL or LGPL would fix. I don't understand 
 this, as the front end is GPL, gdc is fully GPL, and Phobos is either 
 public domain or a far less restrictive license than even LGPL. I saw a 
 similar comment on Digg. So something is giving the impression that D 
 has a restrictive license.
 

I think part of this is the fact that GDC usually lags so far behind DMD. This gives the impression that D has DMD as its proprietary reference compiler, and GDC as a half-assed attempt at a FOSS one. Perhaps I'm coming off a bit harsh. Anyway, this is nobody's fault. GDC is complicated and difficult to maintain. Walter has other priorities (and that's good, since if he had to deal with GDC, D would never evolve ;) ), and David (the original porter) has been somewhat out of contact. That turned it into sort of a political game - nobody wanted to circumvent David, since he's hopefully still maintaining GDC, just busy. All I have to say to you, Walter, is: Don't worry about what people think of the licensing. I'm an FOSS advocate, maybe even a zealot, but I love D. For about 12 hours (the people on IRC can attest to this :P) I thought it was unfortunate that the FOSS support was so bad ... until I realized that it was nobody's fault, and you've been trying your best to keep it healthy without ending up selling all your time to it. Then I made some hacks to GDC, now I have it running against 0.156, and DStress is showing some positive results. With a few more debugging sessions, it may be relatively clean. All that was needed was for somebody to take the initiative and not be afraid of offending somebody (sorry David ;) ) I'm new to the game, so if anything I've said is inaccurate, I apologize. - Gregor Richards
Apr 28 2006
next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:
 
 I think part of this is the fact that GDC usually lags so far behind 
 DMD.  This gives the impression that D has DMD as its proprietary 
 reference compiler, and GDC as a half-assed attempt at a FOSS one. 
 Perhaps I'm coming off a bit harsh.

That's always been my impression .. -Hasan
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:
 Anyway, this is nobody's fault.  GDC is complicated and difficult to 
 maintain.  Walter has other priorities (and that's good, since if he had 
 to deal with GDC, D would never evolve ;) ), and David (the original 
 porter) has been somewhat out of contact.  That turned it into sort of a 
 political game - nobody wanted to circumvent David, since he's hopefully 
 still maintaining GDC, just busy.

BTW, just so everyone knows, I cannot maintain GDC. The reason is I wish to avoid 'taint' by looking at other compiler sources.
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling parent reply Gabe McArthur <Gabe_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e2uvsh$22kt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, 
 just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to 
 work.


I haven't really overlooked dsource.org. In fact I've been going over it quite a bit. I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing. Instead, I want to put a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many people together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability. Frankly, I think you're all pretty fantastic for working so hard on D -- it's a labor of love for many of you and you should feel exceptionally proud. You are all competent professionals that love to explore new avenues and work towards making D a better language. However, for everyone else out there -- everyone who isn't a born programmer -- I feel that what D really needs is an entry-level configuration for would-be D hackers: something that 'just works'. Look at Java and Mono -- these languages/libraries aren't just succeeding because they have great communities or prolific resources -- they're succeeding because they package together good tools, inteligent ideas, huge libraries, and wonderful documentation into one place. And they live by setting project goals! Everybody's contributions are being fed back into one location, one repository, one central nexus of talent and development. In this sense, one might consider dsource a wonderful kaliedescope of talent and libraries, but what is probalby needed is a laser: a focus and direction to the whole project with mesurable goals and specific timelines. (You can see from the current development of the gcd, things seem to be somewhat in the air in terms of maintaining contact and getting people organized.) As for the liscensing issue, well, I came to the LGPL and GPL after looking through some of the dsource libraries and wondering at some of the liscenses (Ares, I discovered after questioning, should be under a kind of BSD liscense). I don't want there to be any question about the status of the gnu-d.org library. I really want people to feel that they can take what gets put up and do whatever they want with it, as long as they realize that the code isn't a personal right but a public ownership best served by having everyone involved. Besides, it isn't necessarily handed down from on high that everything has to be under the LGPL (though the core library probably should be), as the community may decide that the MIT or BSD liscense will be sufficient in certain circumstances. But, there again is part of my point: put a laser beam focus on what needs to be done and do that one thing well -- as a community. And, just as an aside, I would like to say that just as many people here are disturbed by the power of the GPL, there are many, many other people in the world who hack every day under the ideal of free software. It's these dedicated individuals that I would like gnu-d.org to appeal to, as well. The lack of a direct mission statement on the D website and a lack of explicit liscensing for every D component, I feel, is currently inhibiting some people who might otherwise join up. (It might be unfair, but some people figure if they have to ask about what liscense it's under, they probably don't even want to know.) To summarize: timelines, community, docuemntation, and packaging. I think these should be some of the primary goals of gnu-d.org If you want to join, great! I know that I would love to have the company. If not, then no hard feelings -- you're still doing great work for D, and that's what's really important! Salud, Gabe
Apr 29 2006
next sibling parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:
 I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going over it quite
 a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying
 to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  

What exactly is stopping anyone, including you, from doing what you describe at dsource?
 Instead, I want to put
 a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of
 libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many people
 together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.

I see. And this requires splitting away from dsource.org, and must be handled under the banner of GNU. O.k.a.y. Doesn't that sound like a shallow sales-pitch to you? Like a book-purchase link?
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
kris wrote:
 Gabe McArthur wrote:
 
 I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going over 
 it quite
 a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm 
 not trying
 to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  

What exactly is stopping anyone, including you, from doing what you describe at dsource?
 Instead, I want to put
 a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of
 libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many 
 people
 together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.

I see. And this requires splitting away from dsource.org, and must be handled under the banner of GNU. O.k.a.y. Doesn't that sound like a shallow sales-pitch to you? Like a book-purchase link?

D Source is *NOT* the official or the one and only place for D projects. IMHO, having /more/ websites dedicated to the D programming language is for the better.
Apr 29 2006
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 D Source is *NOT* the official or the one and only place for D projects.
 
 IMHO, having /more/ websites dedicated to the D programming language is 
 for the better.

I can see a point to a site that is a centralized database for D code that is GPL'd or has a license compatible with the GPL. It could even be just links to other sites, like particular projects under dsource. It needn't be duplicative or divisive, but could be more of a cross reference for those who want to restrict themselves to using only GPL.
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 kris wrote:
 
 Gabe McArthur wrote:

 I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going 
 over it quite
 a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm 
 not trying
 to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  

What exactly is stopping anyone, including you, from doing what you describe at dsource?
 Instead, I want to put
 a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose 
 collection of
 libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many 
 people
 together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.

I see. And this requires splitting away from dsource.org, and must be handled under the banner of GNU. O.k.a.y. Doesn't that sound like a shallow sales-pitch to you? Like a book-purchase link?

D Source is *NOT* the official or the one and only place for D projects. IMHO, having /more/ websites dedicated to the D programming language is for the better.

That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
kris wrote:
 Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
 kris wrote:

 Gabe McArthur wrote:

 I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going 
 over it quite
 a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm 
 not trying
 to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  

What exactly is stopping anyone, including you, from doing what you describe at dsource?
 Instead, I want to put
 a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose 
 collection of
 libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many 
 people
 together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.

I see. And this requires splitting away from dsource.org, and must be handled under the banner of GNU. O.k.a.y. Doesn't that sound like a shallow sales-pitch to you? Like a book-purchase link?

D Source is *NOT* the official or the one and only place for D projects. IMHO, having /more/ websites dedicated to the D programming language is for the better.

That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?

That's a good question. I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to achieve that vision. Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the vision that he has.
Apr 29 2006
next sibling parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
[snip]
 That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
 question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries 
 require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?

That's a good question. I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to achieve that vision. Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the vision that he has.

Well, that's certainly a twist :) The obvious question is: why can't this "vision" be manifested at dsource? I mean, is dsource such an unruly place that nothing can possibly be achieved? Are they just not worthy, over there? Or, do those currently at dsource not have any notion of vision? I have this "vision" of a horde of gnarly programmers milling around at dsource like pigs at a trough <g> And, why can't gabe answer these question himself? It's been asked a number of times now ;) Having a "vision" is great. And, if one needs to place said vision under the umbrella of some doctrine, then more power to you. However, that tends to point toward one thing, and pretty much one thing only: such a "vision" appears to be more about ivory-towers than about a D community or the furtherment/success of D per se. Otherwise, it could happily take place at the "grand cathedral" of dsource. Right? Without meaning to state the obvious, it's not as though others are not currently working on a "unified vision" either - it's hardly a novel idea - some of those projects even have one or two years invested thus far. Is it too much trouble to get involved with those, perhaps? Are they perhaps just not good enough? Is there perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome? Something else maybe? I'd like to think these questions have some logical and rational answers, and I'd really like to see you folks join in with the effort under way at dsource. Lastly, I'd like to think we won't find gnu-d with its little hand in the "open" dsource cookie-jar :) - Kris
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Alberto Simon <Alberto_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e30n4a$22ig$1 digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
[snip]
 That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
 question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries 
 require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?

That's a good question. I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to achieve that vision. Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the vision that he has.

Well, that's certainly a twist :) The obvious question is: why can't this "vision" be manifested at dsource? I mean, is dsource such an unruly place that nothing can possibly be achieved? Are they just not worthy, over there? Or, do those currently at dsource not have any notion of vision? I have this "vision" of a horde of gnarly programmers milling around at dsource like pigs at a trough <g> And, why can't gabe answer these question himself? It's been asked a number of times now ;) Having a "vision" is great. And, if one needs to place said vision under the umbrella of some doctrine, then more power to you. However, that tends to point toward one thing, and pretty much one thing only: such a "vision" appears to be more about ivory-towers than about a D community or the furtherment/success of D per se. Otherwise, it could happily take place at the "grand cathedral" of dsource. Right? Without meaning to state the obvious, it's not as though others are not currently working on a "unified vision" either - it's hardly a novel idea - some of those projects even have one or two years invested thus far. Is it too much trouble to get involved with those, perhaps? Are they perhaps just not good enough? Is there perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome? Something else maybe? I'd like to think these questions have some logical and rational answers, and I'd really like to see you folks join in with the effort under way at dsource. Lastly, I'd like to think we won't find gnu-d with its little hand in the "open" dsource cookie-jar :) - Kris

In the end, this just adds up to why to use or why not to use dsource.org. It's all a matter of impression. Gabe want's a site where there is only one focus, having a lot of libraries that each own has one focus doesn't give an impression of uniformity or conformity. It's not that having a variety of libraries is bad, but in order to develop a package you need your own page just to give the impression that your goal is unified. Mono is both hosted in it's page and in sourceforge, as many other projects do, but it's goals and management doesn't occur through sourceforge (mainly) and that's probably the reason for a new page. As someone said earlier, it isn't necessarily bad to have several pages. In the end, using dsource to control such a large project and such a large idea, gives an impression of constrainment and that's why I see it fit to host it on another page. In the end, though, discussing the locality of the project provides no benefit to whole. We should put our attention to more important issues like how to accomplish everything we wan't. I come from a .NET/Java background in the sense that I'm used to work in a coherent environment and that the tools needed to be productive are there, every thing just works. I see D trying to accomplish those goals but also providing a more powerful platform such that you don't have to go back to C/C++ if you need such power. One of the things I just hate of C/C++ is that there are countless Standard libraries and that every single project I've seen in a company uses either a different one or one created by them. We shouldn't let this happen to D, otherwise we wouldn't be providing anything meaningful for those looking for an alternative to the other modern languages. Not that there shouldn't be a lot of libraries, on the contrary, but we should also provide a coherent framework. I would like to ask anyone that reads what I wrote, to keep in mind that english isn't my native language and that there could be errors in what I wrote, but try to grasp the whole meaning of what I intended to say. Regards, Alberto Simoon
Apr 29 2006
parent kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Alberto Simon wrote:
 In article <e30n4a$22ig$1 digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
 
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
[snip]

That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries 
require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?

That's a good question. I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to achieve that vision. Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the vision that he has.

Well, that's certainly a twist :) The obvious question is: why can't this "vision" be manifested at dsource? I mean, is dsource such an unruly place that nothing can possibly be achieved? Are they just not worthy, over there? Or, do those currently at dsource not have any notion of vision? I have this "vision" of a horde of gnarly programmers milling around at dsource like pigs at a trough <g> And, why can't gabe answer these question himself? It's been asked a number of times now ;) Having a "vision" is great. And, if one needs to place said vision under the umbrella of some doctrine, then more power to you. However, that tends to point toward one thing, and pretty much one thing only: such a "vision" appears to be more about ivory-towers than about a D community or the furtherment/success of D per se. Otherwise, it could happily take place at the "grand cathedral" of dsource. Right? Without meaning to state the obvious, it's not as though others are not currently working on a "unified vision" either - it's hardly a novel idea - some of those projects even have one or two years invested thus far. Is it too much trouble to get involved with those, perhaps? Are they perhaps just not good enough? Is there perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome? Something else maybe? I'd like to think these questions have some logical and rational answers, and I'd really like to see you folks join in with the effort under way at dsource. Lastly, I'd like to think we won't find gnu-d with its little hand in the "open" dsource cookie-jar :)


 In the end, this just adds up to why to use or why not to use dsource.org. 
 It's all a matter of impression. 

With respect "Alberto", dsource.org represents the majority segment of current D developer-group ~ globally, one might add ~ and is quite open by nature. On the other hand, what's being proposed represents the ideals of one individual, shadowed by the auspices of the GPL. Quite different concepts, wouldn't you say? Quite a bit more than simply a matter of impression :)
 Gabe want's a site where there is only one focus,
 having a lot of libraries that each own has one focus doesn't give an
impression
 of uniformity or conformity. It's not that having a variety of libraries is
bad,
 but in order to develop a package you need your own page just to give the
 impression that your goal is unified. Mono is both hosted in it's page and in
 sourceforge, as many other projects do, but it's goals and management doesn't
 occur through sourceforge (mainly) and that's probably the reason for a new
 page. 

We keep hearing about Mono, when there's zero comparison. Mono is a *clone* of an existing environment. Didn't Walter explain this already? Unfortunately, the intent here is starting to look more and more like some veiled effort to capitalize upon the work of others. If it were truly for the benefit of the D community, or for the true furtherment of D as a success, there would likely be no issue about making this a dsource project, with potentially an independent front-page. Would there? Instead, we see a lot of spinning and weaving around that particular question. And from people who apparently know little about D? It's almost like there's "suddenly a marketing opportunity to make a few bucks" ... kinda' bizarre how this is turning out. Don't get me wrong: marketing, with a big capital 'M', would be great for D. But this approach, er, smells of trout. If you'll please pardon me for saying so? Suggestion: So, why not build a front-page that represents the ideals of the D community? Backed by dsource projects, intellect, knowledge, ideals, non-viral licensing, and everything else that dsource represents? Wouldn't that perhaps better represent the D community than some individual who is completely new to the language and environment? *shrug*
 We should put our attention to more important issues like how to accomplish
 everything we wan't. I come from a .NET/Java background in the sense that I'm
 used to work in a coherent environment and that the tools needed to be
 productive are there, every thing just works. 

The actual need for a cohesive library is not the issue at hand here
 I would like to ask anyone that reads what I wrote, to keep in mind that
english
 isn't my native language and that there could be errors in what I wrote, but
try
 to grasp the whole meaning of what I intended to say.

Oh, you do very well. In fact, your particular command and usage of English is patterned just a bit too closely to that of "gabe" ;) It is somewhat odd how many brand new NG names are coming out in support of "gabe" and gnu/gpl, all of a sudden. From pathlink.com also. Perhaps that's just a happy coincidence Salud! - Kris
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:38:56 +1000, Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com>  
wrote:


 I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to  
 achieve that vision.
 Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on  
 dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the  
 community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the  
 vision that he has.

This is exactly the feeling I got too. I'm not ready to support Gabe as the self-elected boss yet. The dsource approach seem to suit me better. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 29 2006
parent reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward>
дϢ:op.s8sodjnt6b8z09 ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
 On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:38:56 +1000, Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> 
 wrote:


 I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to 
 achieve that vision.
 Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on 
 dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the 
 community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the 
 vision that he has.

This is exactly the feeling I got too. I'm not ready to support Gabe as the self-elected boss yet. The dsource approach seem to suit me better.

Did you means the approach that no schedule, no management, just for fun? Sosome lib will stall any time, stop any time, without any announcement.
 -- 
 Derek Parnell
 Melbourne, Australia 

Apr 29 2006
parent reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:42:03 +1000, Boris Wang <nano.kago hotmail.com>  
wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> Ð 
 ´ÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:op.s8sodjnt6b8z09 ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
 On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:38:56 +1000, Hasan Aljudy  
 <hasan.aljudy gmail.com>
 wrote:


 I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to
 achieve that vision.
 Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on
 dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the
 community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the
 vision that he has.

This is exactly the feeling I got too. I'm not ready to support Gabe as the self-elected boss yet. The dsource approach seem to suit me better.

Did you means the approach that no schedule, no management, just for fun? So£¬some lib will stall any time, stop any time, without any announcement.

I think you misunderstand dsource's role. It hosts projects. There is nothing to stop any given project from being run along the lines you suggest. It is very possible to start a project, hosted at dsource, that has a schedule, management, etc ... dsource is not a hinderance to such a method of working. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 29 2006
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:42:03 +1000, Boris Wang <nano.kago hotmail.com> 
 wrote:
 
 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> 
 дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:op.s8sodjnt6b8z09 ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
 On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:38:56 +1000, Hasan Aljudy 
 <hasan.aljudy gmail.com>
 wrote:


 I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to
 achieve that vision.
 Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on
 dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the
 community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the
 vision that he has.

This is exactly the feeling I got too. I'm not ready to support Gabe as the self-elected boss yet. The dsource approach seem to suit me better.

Did you means the approach that no schedule, no management, just for fun? So£¬some lib will stall any time, stop any time, without any announcement.

I think you misunderstand dsource's role. It hosts projects. There is nothing to stop any given project from being run along the lines you suggest. It is very possible to start a project, hosted at dsource, that has a schedule, management, etc ... dsource is not a hinderance to such a method of working. --Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia

In fact, with the trac functionality, project management is basically built in.
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:
 In article <e2uvsh$22kt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, 
 just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to 
 work.


I haven't really overlooked dsource.org. In fact I've been going over it quite a bit. I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing. Instead, I want to put a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many people together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability. Frankly, I think you're all pretty fantastic for working so hard on D -- it's a labor of love for many of you and you should feel exceptionally proud. You are all competent professionals that love to explore new avenues and work towards making D a better language. However, for everyone else out there -- everyone who isn't a born programmer -- I feel that what D really needs is an entry-level configuration for would-be D hackers: something that 'just works'. Look at Java and Mono -- these languages/libraries aren't just succeeding because they have great communities or prolific resources -- they're succeeding because they package together good tools, inteligent ideas, huge libraries, and wonderful documentation into one place. And they live by setting project goals! Everybody's contributions are being fed back into one location, one repository, one central nexus of talent and development. In this sense, one might consider dsource a wonderful kaliedescope of talent and libraries, but what is probalby needed is a laser: a focus and direction to the whole project with mesurable goals and specific timelines. (You can see from the current development of the gcd, things seem to be somewhat in the air in terms of maintaining contact and getting people organized.) As for the liscensing issue, well, I came to the LGPL and GPL after looking through some of the dsource libraries and wondering at some of the liscenses (Ares, I discovered after questioning, should be under a kind of BSD liscense). I don't want there to be any question about the status of the gnu-d.org library. I really want people to feel that they can take what gets put up and do whatever they want with it, as long as they realize that the code isn't a personal right but a public ownership best served by having everyone involved. Besides, it isn't necessarily handed down from on high that everything has to be under the LGPL (though the core library probably should be), as the community may decide that the MIT or BSD liscense will be sufficient in certain circumstances. But, there again is part of my point: put a laser beam focus on what needs to be done and do that one thing well -- as a community. And, just as an aside, I would like to say that just as many people here are disturbed by the power of the GPL, there are many, many other people in the world who hack every day under the ideal of free software.

Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I think it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, I'm much more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely inappropriate license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* purpose). Please make everything either public domain/BSD/MIT/zlib, or GPL, or commercial closed source. Otherwise, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a site dedicated to a unified GDC package. It's these dedicated
 individuals that I would like gnu-d.org to appeal to, as well.  The lack of a
 direct mission statement on the D website and a lack of explicit liscensing for
 every D component, I feel, is currently inhibiting some people who might
 otherwise join up.  (It might be unfair, but some people figure if they have to
 ask about what liscense it's under, they probably don't even want to know.)
 
 To summarize: timelines, community, docuemntation, and packaging.  I think
these
 should be some of the primary goals of gnu-d.org
 
 If you want to join, great!  I know that I would love to have the company.  If
 not, then no hard feelings -- you're still doing great work for D, and that's
 what's really important!
 
 Salud,
 Gabe
 
 

Apr 29 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:

 Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I think 
 it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, I'm much 
 more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely inappropriate 
 license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* purpose).

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the wxWidgets License ? (it is LGPL, with an exception to allow for static linking too) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php --anders
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 
 Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I 
 think it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, 
 I'm much more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely 
 inappropriate license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* 
 purpose).

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the wxWidgets License ? (it is LGPL, with an exception to allow for static linking too)

It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos). But having a license with an exception just seems complicated to me.
 
 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php
 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
 
 --anders

Apr 29 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:

 It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the 
 most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible 
 exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos).

But you know why LGPL has this somewhat tedious requirement, right ? You *can* link your app statically, as long as you provide the object files necessary for linking everything with the LGPL library replaced. You do have to include the source code for the LGPL component, though. (Most of the time just using the standard shared libraries is easier) Anyway, the wxWidgets license does allow you to link it either way...
 But having a license with an exception just seems complicated to me.

Having two licenses on one code isn't exactly uncomplicated either... --anders
Apr 29 2006
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 
 It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the 
 most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible 
 exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos).

But you know why LGPL has this somewhat tedious requirement, right ? You *can* link your app statically, as long as you provide the object files necessary for linking everything with the LGPL library replaced. You do have to include the source code for the LGPL component, though. (Most of the time just using the standard shared libraries is easier) Anyway, the wxWidgets license does allow you to link it either way...
 But having a license with an exception just seems complicated to me.

Having two licenses on one code isn't exactly uncomplicated either...

Both of these restrictions can be somewhat of an obstacle for a commercial project. Personally, I'd prefer an artistic-style license so as not to unnecessarily restrict the users of my code. Sean
Apr 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Gabe McArthur wrote:

 So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
 gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
 movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
 the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
 homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
 check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
project
 sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
 feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
 think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
 our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).

Like many others on these newsgroups, I'm also a little confused... We've talked about gettting a new home page for GDC, since the current one needs a face lift and more diskspace/bandwidth to host the binaries. It would also be a good thing to gather all the different builds of GDC under a common "umbrella" GDC site, so that it would be easier to find. I have also been working on extending the "toolchain" for GDC, with both the GNU Debugger (gdb) and GNU Make (3.80) and what else that you need. These are all GPL or LGPL license, so they match the "GNU" banner well. Along with some of D documentation written for Wiki4D, all FDL licensed. But this project/site (gnu-d.org) seems to be about something different? It looks like "yet another" repository, in addition to the ones that we already have: Dsource and SourceForge. And I don't think we need that, at least not without a totally different spin or concept attached to it. My work includes working with an existing IDE (Code::Blocks) and with an existing GUI (wxWidgets), instead of starting yet another new project... But those two already have sites (codeblocks.org and wxwidgets.org), and development on the D versions is already being hosted on SourceForge ? However, gnu-d.org would work *great* as the new GNU D Compiler site... Then it could hold the tools and documentation for compiler toolchain, and Dsource could continue to do what it is good at: hosting projects. I was thinking something like this site: http://www.gnu-pascal.org/ We've already discussed packaging on the other newsgroups (d.D / D.gnu), but it includes the packaging for Linux, Cygwin (Win) and Darwin (Mac). Documentation would be how to set up the compiler and getting started ? IMHO: I think this would much be more useful than another "committee". --anders
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Jari-Matti Mkel <Jari-Matti_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e2vao5$2moc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...

<snip>

However, gnu-d.org would work *great* as the new GNU D Compiler site...

Then it could hold the tools and documentation for compiler toolchain, 
and Dsource could continue to do what it is good at: hosting projects.
I was thinking something like this site: http://www.gnu-pascal.org/

We've already discussed packaging on the other newsgroups (d.D / D.gnu),
but it includes the packaging for Linux, Cygwin (Win) and Darwin (Mac).
Documentation would be how to set up the compiler and getting started ?

IMHO: I think this would much be more useful than another "committee".

I agree. It's a bit annoying to search through the newsgroup archive to find some links to the unofficial gdb/gdc patches. A central repository for GNU d compiler tools would be more than helpful. One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we have to assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will most probably hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some point the transition from gpl2->gpl3 will take place) I personally have a high respect for GNU licenses and know that some people here don't fancy this stuff that much, but I want to remind you that the main purpose of GNU tools is to guarantee the freedom of the compilation process. They can be used for even commercial closed source purposes. -- Jari-Matti
Apr 29 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Jari-Matti Mkel wrote:

 One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we have to 
 assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will most probably 
 hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some point the transition 
 from gpl2->gpl3 will take place)

I don't think we have to, unless we want it to be part of the main GCC ? It would be nice if we could get the needed D *patches* conditionalized into the main GCC tree, but I don't think that all of D has to be there. (we can still package it together with GCC, since they're all under GPL) I think it's enough if you can add the "d" and "libphobos" directories to an existing GCC tarball, patch some Makefiles, and be on your way ? But technically I think the name of it is "GDC - D Front End for GCC", that is: GDC is just an acronym, as using GNU isn't really authorized ? DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman, DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible) To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ? At least that is how I interpret: http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html (they say either assign to FSF, or give up copyright by making it PD) But I haven't had any FSF complaints about me using "GNU D Compiler" for it on the gdcmac site (http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/), so far.... --anders
Apr 29 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund wrote:
 Jari-Matti Mkel wrote:
 
 One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we 
 have to assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will 
 most probably hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some 
 point the transition from gpl2->gpl3 will take place)

I don't think we have to, unless we want it to be part of the main GCC ? It would be nice if we could get the needed D *patches* conditionalized into the main GCC tree, but I don't think that all of D has to be there. (we can still package it together with GCC, since they're all under GPL) I think it's enough if you can add the "d" and "libphobos" directories to an existing GCC tarball, patch some Makefiles, and be on your way ? But technically I think the name of it is "GDC - D Front End for GCC", that is: GDC is just an acronym, as using GNU isn't really authorized ? DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman, DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible) To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ? At least that is how I interpret: http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html (they say either assign to FSF, or give up copyright by making it PD) But I haven't had any FSF complaints about me using "GNU D Compiler" for it on the gdcmac site (http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/), so far.... --anders

As I am a rabid fan of correct nomenclature (for those who haven't noticed...), if GDC is not GNU, then maybe it should not be called "GNU D Compiler". I don't know what it means to be "GNU" though (and I'm not bothered to check it out now), so I don't know if GDC is a "GNU D Compiler". (Yes this is a minor tiny issue, but still) -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Apr 30 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman,
 DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible)

 To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their
 copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ?


 As I am a rabid fan of correct nomenclature (for those who haven't 
 noticed...), if GDC is not GNU, then maybe it should not be called "GNU 
 D Compiler". I don't know what it means to be "GNU" though (and I'm not 
 bothered to check it out now), so I don't know if GDC is a "GNU D 
 Compiler".

Normally it means that it is sanctioned by the Free Software Foundation. http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ That is, that the software is part of the GNU project - not just GPL... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html For instance, the Linux kernel is GPL but not part of the GNU project. (GNU has their own kernel called HURD, but that's a whole other topic) And you are right of course, we should get this matter sorted out good by getting both of Digital Mars and Free Software Foundation involved. The backup plan is "D Compiler for GCC", or even "D Front End for GCC" However, the others are called: GNU C Compiler, GNU C++ Compiler, etc. --anders
Apr 30 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund wrote:
 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 
 DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman,
 DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible)

 To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their
 copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ?


 As I am a rabid fan of correct nomenclature (for those who haven't 
 noticed...), if GDC is not GNU, then maybe it should not be called 
 "GNU D Compiler". I don't know what it means to be "GNU" though (and 
 I'm not bothered to check it out now), so I don't know if GDC is a 
 "GNU D Compiler".

Normally it means that it is sanctioned by the Free Software Foundation. http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ That is, that the software is part of the GNU project - not just GPL... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html For instance, the Linux kernel is GPL but not part of the GNU project. (GNU has their own kernel called HURD, but that's a whole other topic) And you are right of course, we should get this matter sorted out good by getting both of Digital Mars and Free Software Foundation involved. The backup plan is "D Compiler for GCC", or even "D Front End for GCC" However, the others are called: GNU C Compiler, GNU C++ Compiler, etc. --anders

What about simply "GCC D Compiler"? -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
May 03 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 The backup plan is "D Compiler for GCC", or even "D Front End for GCC"
 However, the others are called: GNU C Compiler, GNU C++ Compiler, etc.

What about simply "GCC D Compiler"?

You would have to ask David Friedman... http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/ "D Front End for GCC" http://sourceforge.net/projects/dgcc/ "GDC: D Compiler for GCC" But yeah, "GCC D Compiler" works too. --anders PS. Even more interesting is what happened to http://gnu-d.org ?
May 03 2006
parent reply jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e3atdn$e3e$1 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 The backup plan is "D Compiler for GCC", or even "D Front End for GCC"
 However, the others are called: GNU C Compiler, GNU C++ Compiler, etc.

What about simply "GCC D Compiler"?

You would have to ask David Friedman... http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/ "D Front End for GCC" http://sourceforge.net/projects/dgcc/ "GDC: D Compiler for GCC" But yeah, "GCC D Compiler" works too. --anders PS. Even more interesting is what happened to http://gnu-d.org ?

What do you mean? As far as I can tell nothing happened to it. ;) jcc7
May 03 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
jcc7 wrote:

Even more interesting is what happened to http://gnu-d.org ?
 
 What do you mean? As far as I can tell nothing happened to it. ;)

Exactly... We had some questions, about what it is supposed to be ? --anders
May 03 2006
prev sibling parent Dejan Lekic <dejan nu6.org> writes:
 (including the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts,

I hope you have talked to GDC author(s) about this, and received a "green light" from them? It would be silly to do what you did without their approval. Kind regards Dejan
Apr 29 2006