• Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 27 2010
• Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 27 2010
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 28 2010
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jan 28 2010
• Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> Jan 27 2010
• "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon gmail.com> Jan 27 2010
• Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> Jan 27 2010
• Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010
• Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010
• Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 28 2010

Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:

Jerry Quinn Wrote:

 [also posted to D.gnu]
 
 Hi, folks,
 
 I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC
codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will
likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release
comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an
integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.
 
 To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This
means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL,
they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned
by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD
compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. 
Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.
 
 The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to
get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming
up and validating the language specification so that the language is not
defined by what the DMD compiler does.
 
 My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would
like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a
working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.
 
 One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If
this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What
thoughts do you all have?
 
 In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?
 
 Thanks,
 Jerry
 


Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
They are pushing it very hard. 

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Jerry Quinn Wrote:
 
 [also posted to D.gnu]

 Hi, folks,

 I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC
codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will
likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release
comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an
integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.

 To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This
means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL,
they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned
by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD
compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. 
Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.

 The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to
get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming
up and validating the language specification so that the language is not
defined by what the DMD compiler does.

 My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would
like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a
working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.

 One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If
this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What
thoughts do you all have?

 In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?

 Thanks,
 Jerry


 Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
They are pushing it very hard. 


Who is "they"?

Andrei

Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Jerry Quinn Wrote:
 
 [also posted to D.gnu]

 Hi, folks,

 I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC
codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will
likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release
comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an
integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.

 To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This
means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL,
they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned
by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD
compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally. 
Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.

 The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to
get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming
up and validating the language specification so that the language is not
defined by what the DMD compiler does.

 My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would
like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a
working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.

 One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If
this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What
thoughts do you all have?

 In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?

 Thanks,
 Jerry


 Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
They are pushing it very hard. 


 Who is "they"?
 
 Andrei


Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but
certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of
months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I
want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a
maintained GCC compiler.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
 
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Google's Go will be in GCC.
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are
 pushing it very hard.


 
 Andrei


 Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast,
 but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released
 couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at
 this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC
 oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.


I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing Go 
and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that 
may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks 
Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Google's Go will be in GCC.
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are
 pushing it very hard.



 Andrei


 but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released
 couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at
 this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC
 oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.


 Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit
 alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present
 in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.

 Andrei


 Just see the next message:
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html
 
 2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant google.com>
 
        * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.
 
 
 If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...


I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of the 
frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google 
is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:
 Just see the next message:

 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html

 2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant google.com>

       * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.


 If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...


 the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that
 Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?


 They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".


Aw come on. I knew when I wrote the message I'll leave place for that 
semantic loophole, but I hoped you wouldn't be taking it so I didn't 
bother to preempt. Anyway... an employee spending time on a 20% project 
is a far cry from "Google is pushing Go". Anyone at Google could choose 
to do anything they please for their 20% projects.

Andrei

Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:

On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
They are pushing it very hard.


I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC

"Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon gmail.com> writes:

On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Google's Go will be in GCC.  <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.


 I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC


I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler
for Plan 9.

—Joel Salomon

Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:

On 01/27/2010 11:24 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
 On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 Google's Go will be in GCC.<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.


 I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC


 I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler
 for Plan 9.

 —Joel Salomon


Meh, one of the two

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Google's Go will be in GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are
pushing it very hard.



Andrei


Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast,
but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released
couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at
this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC
oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.


 I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing
 Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit
 alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present
 in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.
 
 Andrei


Just see the next message:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html

2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant google.com>

       * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.


If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:
Just see the next message:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html

2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant google.com>

       * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.


If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...


 I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of
 the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that
 Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?


They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 12:29 me escribiste:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:
Just see the next message:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html

2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant google.com>

      * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.


If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...


the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that
Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?


They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".


 Aw come on. I knew when I wrote the message I'll leave place for
 that semantic loophole, but I hoped you wouldn't be taking it so I
 didn't bother to preempt. Anyway... an employee spending time on a
 20% project is a far cry from "Google is pushing Go". Anyone at
 Google could choose to do anything they please for their 20%
 projects.


Is not just one persona using his 20% project. There are a lot of Google's
employees doing so (and a couple of "high-profile" Google's employees,
like Rob Pike and Ken Thompson). Google's doesn't just give away a day of
work, you have to present a serious project to spent your 20% and they
have to approve it.

I counted 10 people  google and almost 20 more  golang (which, being that
the top developers, like Pike and Thompson are  golang, one could give for
granted that are all Google employees as well) in the CONTRIBUTORS file.
That's about 30 people (without counting other potential Google employees
using another e-mail). I think that is something...

Also, they provide all the infrastructure for the project, all the marking
has Google over the places, etc.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------