www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - dmd platform support - poll

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

.net
jvm
mac osx 32 bit intel
mac osx 64 bit intel
linux 64 bit
windows 64 bit
freebsd 32 bit
netbsd 32 bit

other?
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

mac osx 32 bit intel If I can only vote for one that would be my pick. --bb
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

64bit - both windows and linux. personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

Linux 64 bit Mac osx 32 bit intel
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:30:52 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com>
wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

Linux 64 bit Windows 32 bit :)
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:30:52PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

The ones I wouldn't mind seeing in order of descending preference: windows 64 bit linux 64 bit freebsd 32 bit .net jvm However, if implementing any of this takes resources away from continuing work on the existing platforms, I'd say don't worry about it; Windows and Linux 32 bit are certainly good enough for me. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Walter,

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net

kind'a sort'a
 jvm

no
 mac osx 32 bit intel

yes
 mac osx 64 bit intel

yes
 linux 64 bit

yes (YES if cross compile avalable)
 windows 64 bit

ditto linux 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit

no
 netbsd 32 bit

no
 other?
 

Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of preference: mac osx 32 bit intel linux 64 bit mac osx 64 bit intel
Dec 25 2008
parent Graham St Jack <Graham.StJack internode.on.net> writes:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:56:29 -0800, Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of preference: mac osx 32 bit intel linux 64 bit mac osx 64 bit intel

Ditto
Jan 04 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Sergey Kovrov <kovrov gmail.com> writes:
Windows 64 bit
Mac OSX 64 bit - intel
Maemo - ARM (Texas Instruments OMAP)


-- 
serg.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
I'm perfectly happy with 32 windows & linux, but have some minor interest  
in:
Solaris x86
JVM
Windows 64-bit
.net
Dec 25 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Robert Jacques wrote:
 
 I'm perfectly happy with 32 windows & linux, but have some minor 
 interest in:
 Solaris x86

Oh good point. SPARC Solaris would be nice as well. Though that's only if I plan to use D at work. Sean
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Sean,

 Robert Jacques wrote:
 
 I'm perfectly happy with 32 windows & linux, but have some minor
 interest in:
 Solaris x86

only if I plan to use D at work. Sean

Ditto, because it would be nice to be able to bootstrap without cross compiling at the same time. ("When I get time" I'm planning on finishing a D compiler and plan on targeting sparc first)
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Robert Jacques wrote:
 I'm perfectly happy with 32 windows & linux, but have some minor
 interest in:
 Solaris x86

Oh good point. SPARC Solaris would be nice as well. Though that's only if I plan to use D at work. Sean

Same for me. I also have solaris at work though I very much doubt it that I'll be allowed to use D instead of C++.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 digitalmars.com)'s article
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 other?

Windows or Linux 64-bit, whichever is easier to implement/useful to more people. I'm just sometimes aggravated by the obsolete 32-bit address space limit when working with large amounts of data on machines that have plenty of memory if only I could address it.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Tiago Carvalho" <merlin3000 c-core.org> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

Windows 64 Bits Linux 64 Bits
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent redseabay <redsea 163.com> writes:
1. linux 32bit & linux 64bit
2. windows 32 bit & windows 64bit

I'm using dmd to develop real project in linux 32bit.

Walter Bright Wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of preference: Mac OSX 32 bit Windows 64 bit Mac OSX 64 bit
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

64bit - both windows and linux. Nick B
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Linux 64 Andrei
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:30:52 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Amiga (I can dream can't I?) Windows 64 Linux 64 -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

32 & 64bit OS X 64bit Linux
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

- ARM7/ARM9 - Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gj1olu$1390$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

- ARM7/ARM9 - Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)

To elaborate: 1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.) 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages? I should also add near the top of my list, "the CPUs of all major game consoles". I think console game programmers are very much in need of a language that doesn't suck as horribly as C++, and D is the only one out there that doesn't contain fundamental deal-breakers for modern console game dev.
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Nick,

 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at
 the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you
 working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

how about DBs? Or most anything that uses more than about 2GB of data.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:gj1olu$1390$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 other?
 

- Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)

1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.) 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages? I should also add near the top of my list, "the CPUs of all major game consoles". I think console game programmers are very much in need of a language that doesn't suck as horribly as C++, and D is the only one out there that doesn't contain fundamental deal-breakers for modern console game dev.

You want D working on Game consoles? Aren't most of those 64-bit now? :) -JJR
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the 
 limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working 
 on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

Games. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/x86-64.ars/5
Dec 27 2008
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj5422$1hkv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at 
 the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you 
 working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

Games. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/x86-64.ars/5

The only reason games ever need 64-bit is for the ever-increasing graphics whoring. Sure, you'll probably need 64-bit for Gear-of-War quality graphics, but as a gamer, why the fuck should I care about that? That article heavily cites Epic, but Epic's had their heads firmly up their asses for a good long while now. They're far more interested in forcing hardware upgrades on people than anything else.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dominik" <dominik REMOVETHISvga.hr> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gj1pit$14io$1 digitalmars.com...
 To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What 
 in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling 
 packages?

yes
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:gj1olu$1390$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

- Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)

To elaborate: 1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.) 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

I have to say I'm appalled by this, particularly coming from someone who ought to know better. Should we really settle our ambitions with computers to glorified typewriters, networking tools, and the such? Andrei
Dec 27 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gj5r9e$dom$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:gj1olu$1390$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

- Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)

To elaborate: 1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.) 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

I have to say I'm appalled by this, particularly coming from someone who ought to know better. Should we really settle our ambitions with computers to glorified typewriters, networking tools, and the such?

I never said D shouldn't have 64-bit support, I just don't personally have any interest in it. I've done a lot of work on "low-end" systems and older platforms, and frankly *I'm* appalled by how much a lot of developers underestimate a piece of hardware just because it isn't the latest and greatest (and most expensive). Like I indicated, I'm well aware that there are legitimate applications for 64-bit, such as non-linear video editing and 3D modeling (and DBs, servers, and *with caveats* certain types of gaming.) But first of all, I haven't been working on such things, hence my lack of personal interest. And secondly, judging by number of people here asking for 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on such things either.
Dec 27 2008
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for 
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on 
 such things either.

My interest in 64-bit hardware support is based on the belief that before too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell
Dec 27 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on
 such things either.

My interest in 64-bit hardware support is based on the belief that before too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D.

I don't want to be forced into buying a new 64-bit machine just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the faciest stuff out there" people have deemed 32-bit insufficient for all computing needs. Besides, can't 64-bit machines run 32-bit code?
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on
 such things either.

too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D.

I don't want to be forced into buying a new 64-bit machine just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the faciest stuff out there" people have deemed 32-bit insufficient for all computing needs. Besides, can't 64-bit machines run 32-bit code?

Related: a rant of Knuth to be found at http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/news.html. =============================== A Flame About 64-bit Pointers It is absolutely idiotic to have 64-bit pointers when I compile a program that uses less than 4 gigabytes of RAM. When such pointer values appear inside a struct, they not only waste half the memory, they effectively throw away half of the cache. The gcc manpage advertises an option "-mlong32" that sounds like what I want. Namely, I think it would compile code for my x86-64 architecture, taking advantage of the extra registers etc., but it would also know that my program is going to live inside a 32-bit virtual address space. Unfortunately, the -mlong32 option was introduced only for MIPS computers, years ago. Nobody has yet adopted such conventions for today's most popular architecture. Probably that happens because programs compiled with this convention will need to be loaded with a special version of libc. Please, somebody, make that possible. =============================== In my opinion, it's not application pressure that drives 64-bit machine adoption, now or in the near future. It's RAM price, availability, and usefulness. A 32-bit machine cannot gainfully have more than 4GB of RAM, period. That's an awful limitation in wake of increased OS and application demands and falling RAM prices. So people don't migrate to 64 bits just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the fanciest stuff out there". They migrate (often without even knowing it) just because they want more RAM. And they want more RAM because machines with more RAM often run smoother and faster. Andrei
Dec 27 2008
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Andrei,

 In my opinion, it's not application pressure that drives 64-bit
 machine adoption, now or in the near future. It's RAM price,
 availability, and usefulness. A 32-bit machine cannot gainfully have
 more than 4GB of RAM, period.

IIRC 32 bit Intel chips can address more like 64GB of RAM (I can't find the ref but I seem to recall about 4 extra address bits). It's just virtual address spaces that are limited to 4GB (or 2-3GB after the OS takes it's pound of flesh) As pointed out, only a few apps need anything near 2GB of RAM per process.
 That's an awful limitation in wake of
 increased OS and application demands and falling RAM prices. So people
 don't migrate to 64 bits just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the
 fanciest stuff out there". They migrate (often without even knowing
 it) just because they want more RAM. And they want more RAM because
 machines with more RAM often run smoother and faster.
 
 Andrei
 

Dec 27 2008
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Reply to Andrei,
 
 In my opinion, it's not application pressure that drives 64-bit
 machine adoption, now or in the near future. It's RAM price,
 availability, and usefulness. A 32-bit machine cannot gainfully have
 more than 4GB of RAM, period.

IIRC 32 bit Intel chips can address more like 64GB of RAM (I can't find the ref but I seem to recall about 4 extra address bits). It's just virtual address spaces that are limited to 4GB (or 2-3GB after the OS takes it's pound of flesh) As pointed out, only a few apps need anything near 2GB of RAM per process.

Even if only a few apps need anything near 2GB of RAM per process, their sum will exceed that limit rather quickly, which gives strong justification to 64-bit OSs. (Not sure if you meant to basically say the same.) The real problem is that there are applications that need as much memory as they could possibly get, and for those dmd simply offers no option. Andrei
Dec 27 2008
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Andrei,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Reply to Andrei,
 
 In my opinion, it's not application pressure that drives 64-bit
 machine adoption, now or in the near future. It's RAM price,
 availability, and usefulness. A 32-bit machine cannot gainfully have
 more than 4GB of RAM, period.
 

find the ref but I seem to recall about 4 extra address bits). It's just virtual address spaces that are limited to 4GB (or 2-3GB after the OS takes it's pound of flesh) As pointed out, only a few apps need anything near 2GB of RAM per process.


found a ref: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1168664 the CPU limit has to be >=128GB (look at Server 2003) or it might be 64GB (re linux)
 Even if only a few apps need anything near 2GB of RAM per process,
 their sum will exceed that limit rather quickly, which gives strong
 justification to 64-bit OSs. (Not sure if you meant to basically say
 the same.)

Most people will not have problems with 2GB/process limits, those that do can go 64bit. Most people won't have much use for more than about 8-16GB total of RAM and those are well within the CPU's limit (but outside the OS's [vista/XP]). My point is that few people are pushing either the per process or system total memory limits of the x86-32bit CPUs and need something that only 64bit CPU's will give them. (OTOH you might need 64bit to run the OS you need to get at enough RAM)
 
 The real problem is that there are applications that need as much
 memory as they could possibly get, and for those dmd simply offers no
 option.

Agree. Compilers seem to need to be written for the corner cases. "No one will ever need to do that" is never a valid answer.
 
 Andrei
 

Dec 27 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Agree. Compilers seem to need to be written for the corner cases. "No 
 one will ever need to do that" is never a valid answer.

The other thing to consider is that the type of programmer interested in D likely would also be one wanting to work with the latest and greatest machines, pushing their limits, and that means 64 bits.
Dec 27 2008
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:45:48 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:
 Agree. Compilers seem to need to be written for the corner cases. "No 
 one will ever need to do that" is never a valid answer.

The other thing to consider is that the type of programmer interested in D likely would also be one wanting to work with the latest and greatest machines, pushing their limits, and that means 64 bits.

I'm already saving up for the 128-bits CPU's. ;-) -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Derek Parnell"<derek psych.ward>  wrote in message
 news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on
 such things either.

too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D.

I don't want to be forced into buying a new 64-bit machine just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the faciest stuff out there" people have deemed 32-bit insufficient for all computing needs. Besides, can't 64-bit machines run 32-bit code?

a) current hardware is 64bit (if you go and buy a PC), so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's not about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the current standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any compiler implementation nowadays. b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old technology which is being faded away? 64bit machines can run old *legacy* software which is 32bit, but that doesn't mean *new* software should be written as 32 bit. no one forcing you to buy a new PC and DMD will continue to support 32bit for a long time, I presume. but you cannot force people who did buy a new PC in the last few *years* to be limited to your old ancient hardware. One last thing, you can always continue using an older version of the compiler even if Walter drops support for 32bit in later versions. In any case, you don't have any valid reason to object to 64bit support.
Dec 27 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gj6e3m$1ilv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Derek Parnell"<derek psych.ward>  wrote in message
 news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work 
 on
 such things either.

before too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D.

I don't want to be forced into buying a new 64-bit machine just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the faciest stuff out there" people have deemed 32-bit insufficient for all computing needs. Besides, can't 64-bit machines run 32-bit code?

a) current hardware is 64bit (if you go and buy a PC),

Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs the question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one. Saying that "most of the ones being sold are 64-bit" is completely different from saying "most of the ones *in use* (ie *current*) are 64-bit". People constantly misuse "this is what you would get if you went out and bought a new system today" as a meaningful assessment of the current state of computing. "What the stores are carrying" could only be an accurate indicator of "current systems" if everyone was going out and buying new systems every single time anyone used that overplayed "if you go and buy a PC" argument.
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's not 
 about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the current 
 standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any compiler 
 implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?

Even in 32-bit "legacy" mode, 64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway. I mean, what's the slowest 64-bit x86 out there? A chip that's still pretty damn fast, that's what. It's pretty difficult to be sympathetic about an overkill system being rendered "still overkill, but only *slightly* less-so". If you're going to try to wring every bit of performance out of a system, it's ridiculous to be focusing that effort on the higher-end. That's just pure wasted effort. And as for people who whine "But I paid big bucks for this high-end system! I deserve to get full-performance out of it!": If they feel that not enough of that system's full potential is getting utilized, then it was pretty stupid for them buy it in the first place. If they were buying it as a future-proofing measure, then they need to learn patience.
 64bit machines can run old *legacy* software which is 32bit, but that 
 doesn't mean *new* software should be written as 32 bit.

No, you're right, it doesn't. But what *does* mean that new software should be written as 32-bit is that there are still a hell of a lot of 32-bit systems in regular use. If you want to toss a 64-bit version out there too, fine. But don't go leaving people out in the cold just because they haven't hopped onto your bandwagon.
 no one forcing you to buy a new PC and DMD will continue to support 32bit 
 for a long time, I presume. but you cannot force people who did buy a new 
 PC in the last few *years* to be limited to your old ancient hardware.

A *few* years is not nearly a long as most people in the tech sector would like to believe (And one hell of a far cry from "ancient"). Something that's only a few years old is still very useful, as well it *should* be. If you feel like you have to replace a machine every couple of years, you're wasting your money. (I'm using the general "you" here, not *you* specifically.) It's just an example of this society's rampant over-consumerism (ie, the so-called "consumer whore") and ever-decreasing pragmatism.
 One last thing, you can always continue using an older version of the 
 compiler even if Walter drops support for 32bit in later versions. In any 
 case, you don't have any valid reason to object to 64bit support.

I never said D shouldn't support 64-bit. Obviously it should. I'm saying it shouldn't be such a high priority.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 no one forcing you to buy a new PC and DMD will continue to support
 32bit for a long time, I presume. but you cannot force people who did
 buy a new PC in the last few *years* to be limited to your old
 ancient hardware.
 

would like to believe (And one hell of a far cry from "ancient"). Something that's only a few years old is still very useful, as well it *should* be. If you feel like you have to replace a machine every couple of years, you're wasting your money. (I'm using the general "you" here, not *you* specifically.) It's just an example of this society's rampant over-consumerism (ie, the so-called "consumer whore") and ever-decreasing pragmatism.

Although your manner tends toward aggressive here, you have some very good points. :) Our society is indeed caught up in over-consumerisim. A 64-bit port will appear eventually because of demand. For a few people the need will be a valid one; but for most, the port will only satisfy the ever-growing /perception/ of the need, rather than the need itself. For consumers, this has been how the computer industry has operated for awhile. Incidentally, I'm still using my Compaq Presario X1000 laptop (Pentium M 1.4 GHz) which is probably close to 6 years old now. I've updated certain aspects of it and fixed it a couple of times. Amazingly it keeps running... and performs quite well for my needs. But... I do recall the days when I used to throw money at computer upgrade after computer upgrade... probably every year. For me, that was a huge waste of money, and I look back in horror at my spending practice. For businesses, I imagine annual upgrades might be a necessity, however. -JJR
Dec 27 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Incidentally, I'm still using my Compaq Presario X1000 laptop (Pentium M 
 1.4 GHz) which is probably close to 6 years old now.  I've updated 
 certain aspects of it and fixed it a couple of times.  Amazingly it 
 keeps running... and performs quite well for my needs.

As my main machine, I use a P4 at 1.6 GHz, 512 Mb ram. I'm not sure how old it is, but when the power supply failed and I went to the nerd store to replace it, the guy said "I haven't seen one of these power supply configurations in years!" He sent me to the local pc recycler, where I got one out of a bin for $10. Compilers don't need a lot of horsepower, and I'm not a gamer, so this machine has been just fine.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Walter,

 Compilers don't need a lot of horsepower
 

LOL, but then I'm me.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj6mld$294o$1 digitalmars.com...
 John Reimer wrote:
 Incidentally, I'm still using my Compaq Presario X1000 laptop (Pentium M 
 1.4 GHz) which is probably close to 6 years old now.  I've updated 
 certain aspects of it and fixed it a couple of times.  Amazingly it keeps 
 running... and performs quite well for my needs.

As my main machine, I use a P4 at 1.6 GHz, 512 Mb ram. I'm not sure how old it is, but when the power supply failed and I went to the nerd store to replace it, the guy said "I haven't seen one of these power supply configurations in years!" He sent me to the local pc recycler, where I got one out of a bin for $10.

Now that I don't feel like I'd be laughed out of the discussion in a flurry of posts involving words like "archaic": Mine's a: - 1.7 GHz Celeron (was a 1.2GHz AMD K6-2 for a long time, but I bought this CPU/MB off someone for about $25, seems to be about the same performance though (makes sense, Celerons are notoriously low on cache, or at least were last I checked)). - 1 GB RAM (Only reason I upgraded from 512MB was I had a job that needed MS's bloated .NET era SQL Sever client), - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader GeForceMX 2 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one for about $40 and wanted to play around with pixel shaders). - The motherboard's USB is v1.x - 21" CRT I got from a CompUSA store-closing for $25. (Funny thing is, this was made years ago and goes higher than HD resolution and has no native resolution, good contrast, no ghosting, no realistic risk of burn-in, and zero frames of "image processing" delay. Silly people and their hundreds/thousands-of-dollars LCD/Plasma/DLP HDTVs ;) ) I can't hang it on the wall, but what do I care? My desk's big enough. So, yea, about on par with you two. (Although I do have damn near a TB of HD space and still crave more...yea, I'm a packrat.) The only thing about it that I feel is insufficient is the number of PCI ports (it's one of those reduced-size motherboards...in a non-reduced-size case), but I'm still getting by. I do some occasional video processing/editing, 3D stuff (mainly to learn it), and gaming (but nothing like Gears of War or Halo or anything like that, besides I prefer to game on a living-room console). If I were to get really serious about any of those things, I would probably want a new system, but I don't do enough of them to really justify it. I would kind of like the convenience of a laptop (mine's dead), but the only reason I'd be interested in the fancier CPUs on that is for the reduced heat/power consumption. Speaking of laptops, if anyone hears about a company that makes quality laptops with an actual built-in trackball, let me know. I can't stand those awful touchpads or IBM's "nubs", and dragging around a real trackball in addition to power cord, etc, starts taking away from the whole "portability" thing. One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better": I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her small business's wireless network with a wired one. And now I'll stop rambling ;)
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:gj6mld$294o$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Incidentally, I'm still using my Compaq Presario X1000 laptop
 (Pentium M 1.4 GHz) which is probably close to 6 years old now.
 I've updated certain aspects of it and fixed it a couple of times.
 Amazingly it keeps running... and performs quite well for my needs.
 

how old it is, but when the power supply failed and I went to the nerd store to replace it, the guy said "I haven't seen one of these power supply configurations in years!" He sent me to the local pc recycler, where I got one out of a bin for $10.

flurry of posts involving words like "archaic": Mine's a:

Ha! :) I should confess something here. Two or three years ago, I actually purchased components and built two AMD Athlon 64 systems for myself (sequentially... not both at once). The last one was a dual core. But I gave them away to family and settled on just using my old laptop. Both systems had fairly powerful graphics cards in them too. They were good systems and were great for playing the latest flight simulators... but I decided I wanted to spend less time on games. :). Right now the dual core system is put to very good use by my younger brother and sisters for video editing... one can never get too much power or memory for that task. Also, nowadays, video-editing among non-professionals is quite common... so I think there may just be a whole lot more justification for buying into some of these powerful systems than you might realize.
 - 1.7 GHz Celeron (was a 1.2GHz AMD K6-2 for a long time, but I bought
 this CPU/MB off someone for about $25, seems to be about the same
 performance though (makes sense, Celerons are notoriously low on
 cache, or at least were last I checked)).
 

I've never heard of a 1.2 GHz K6-2. Was that overclocked or something? I think most of those maxed out at 500 MHz. I've used k6-3's and k6-2+'s before. Excellent CPU's for the time.
 - 1 GB RAM (Only reason I upgraded from 512MB was I had a job that
 needed MS's bloated .NET era SQL Sever client),
 

I also have 1 GB. This is actually a little limited for a system that needs to use a VM like VirutalBox, VMWare or Parallels. I've made use of these tools for porting both win32 and linux software at the same time. I now use coLinux, and while that works much better, I still could use more memory. Also since I use VM's, I'm actually missing the hardware support for them that is now available in modern CPU's.
 - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader
 GeForceMX 2 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one
 for about $40 and wanted to play around with pixel shaders).
 

I'm looking forward to the time I can purchase another laptop. I wouldn't mind getting a graphics chipset that supports some of these features so that I can experiment. But admittedly, Graphics technology is among the fastest moving targets yet. For now, I can do just fine with my laptop and its ATI Radeon 9000 64 MB chipset.
 - The motherboard's USB is v1.x

I can't stand USB v1.x ... it's way to slow for hard drive operation. The bandwidth just isn't sufficient anymore.
 - 21" CRT I got from a CompUSA store-closing for $25. (Funny thing is,
 this was made years ago and goes higher than HD resolution and has no
 native resolution, good contrast, no ghosting, no realistic risk of
 burn-in, and zero frames of "image processing" delay. Silly people and
 their hundreds/thousands-of-dollars LCD/Plasma/DLP HDTVs ;) ) I can't
 hang it on the wall, but what do I care? My desk's big enough.
 

LCD's are among the greatest advancement of today's technologies. CRT's are horrible throwback to the day of triodes, pentodes, and lightbulbs... and other high-voltage Edison-derivatives. I've considered them so for probably over 10 years. I was itching for the day that I could stop staring at an electron beam sprayed directly into my eyes. I've never lamented the CRT's fall from grace.
 So, yea, about on par with you two. (Although I do have damn near a TB
 of HD space and still crave more...yea, I'm a packrat.) The only thing
 about it that I feel is insufficient is the number of PCI ports (it's
 one of those reduced-size motherboards...in a non-reduced-size case),
 but I'm still getting by.
 
 I do some occasional video processing/editing, 3D stuff (mainly to
 learn it), and gaming (but nothing like Gears of War or Halo or
 anything like that, besides I prefer to game on a living-room
 console). If I were to get really serious about any of those things, I
 would probably want a new system, but I don't do enough of them to
 really justify it.
 
 I would kind of like the convenience of a laptop (mine's dead), but
 the only reason I'd be interested in the fancier CPUs on that is for
 the reduced heat/power consumption.
 
 Speaking of laptops, if anyone hears about a company that makes
 quality laptops with an actual built-in trackball, let me know. I
 can't stand those awful touchpads or IBM's "nubs", and dragging around
 a real trackball in addition to power cord, etc, starts taking away
 from the whole "portability" thing.
 

I haven't seen or heard of trackballs in a laptop for a long time. :) I know what your saying about the touchpads... I'm actually surprised they stuck. I don't consider them to be the best invention to be adopted for laptops. They do the job, but I think we should have stuck with "nubs". "nubs" were hard to get familiar with, but once you did... they were extremely practical and space efficient... or so I felt anwyay.
 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.
 
 And now I'll stop rambling ;)
 

Wired is not necessarily backwards. :) Despite the tangly lines, it's just easier to keep secure. -JJR
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's 
 just easier to keep secure.

There are more reasons to like wireds. Plug the wire in, and it works, you're up on the LAN. With wireless, there's usually 3-5 minutes of fiddling to get connected. And if it won't connect, you have no idea why, so you go cold boot the machine, cold boot the wireless access point, hold the antenna up, etc. Phui. Don't tell me this is fixed, either. I just got a brand new eee pc. Plug in the wire, boom, perfection. Use the built in wireless, and fiddle, faddle, cold boot, faddle, fiddle, cold boot, fiddle, faddle, ah, now it's working. This is in the *AS SHIPPED* configuration, not something I downloaded or installed.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines,
 it's just easier to keep secure.
 

you're up on the LAN. With wireless, there's usually 3-5 minutes of fiddling to get connected. And if it won't connect, you have no idea why, so you go cold boot the machine, cold boot the wireless access point, hold the antenna up, etc. Phui. Don't tell me this is fixed, either. I just got a brand new eee pc. Plug in the wire, boom, perfection. Use the built in wireless, and fiddle, faddle, cold boot, faddle, fiddle, cold boot, fiddle, faddle, ah, now it's working. This is in the *AS SHIPPED* configuration, not something I downloaded or installed.

Yeah... there are more complexities with wireless, for sure. That said, I haven't had that much trouble with wireless (not even on my eee pc). It sometimes does require a fairly detailed knowledge of configuration, however, compared to wired. When that's been the case, I have struggled with it. -JJR
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's 
 just easier to keep secure.

There are more reasons to like wireds. Plug the wire in, and it works, you're up on the LAN. With wireless, there's usually 3-5 minutes of fiddling to get connected. And if it won't connect, you have no idea why, so you go cold boot the machine, cold boot the wireless access point, hold the antenna up, etc. Phui.

Interference can be a huge problem as well. Basically all in-home devices use the same spectrum, and it's not uncommon for cordless phones to knock a WiFi laptop offline, etc. And then there's house construction. My parents used to live in an older house with plaster walls, and plaster walls are laid on steel mesh to hold the plaster in place. They may as well have been living in a giant Faraday cage as far as WiFi was concerned. Wireless is a great option, but if I *can* run a wire easily from the router to wherever then it's definitely preferred. Sean
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's 
 just easier to keep secure.

There are more reasons to like wireds. Plug the wire in, and it works, you're up on the LAN. With wireless, there's usually 3-5 minutes of fiddling to get connected. And if it won't connect, you have no idea why, so you go cold boot the machine, cold boot the wireless access point, hold the antenna up, etc. Phui. Don't tell me this is fixed, either. I just got a brand new eee pc. Plug in the wire, boom, perfection. Use the built in wireless, and fiddle, faddle, cold boot, faddle, fiddle, cold boot, fiddle, faddle, ah, now it's working. This is in the *AS SHIPPED* configuration, not something I downloaded or installed.

Got to say, Linux's #1 drawback is lack of solid wireless support. It can get very, very unnerving. Particularly because of the chicken-and-egg thing: you install Linux and you want to get the wifi working, but you can't download the appropriate driver because you can't connect. Then the default network-manager is really crappy. My Linux experience improved considerably when I found a drop-in replacement called wicd (http://wicd.sf.net). Andrei
Dec 28 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Got to say, Linux's #1 drawback is lack of solid wireless support. It 
 can get very, very unnerving. Particularly because of the 
 chicken-and-egg thing: you install Linux and you want to get the wifi 
 working, but you can't download the appropriate driver because you can't 
 connect. Then the default network-manager is really crappy. My Linux 
 experience improved considerably when I found a drop-in replacement 
 called wicd (http://wicd.sf.net).

My router burned out this morning (nice smell of ozone), and when I went to the nerd store to get another, my eee pc was there on sale for $249, $100 less than I paid for it. The sign on it says "last one".
Dec 30 2008
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Got to say, Linux's #1 drawback is lack of solid wireless support. It 
 can get very, very unnerving. Particularly because of the 
 chicken-and-egg thing: you install Linux and you want to get the wifi 
 working, but you can't download the appropriate driver because you 
 can't connect. Then the default network-manager is really crappy. My 
 Linux experience improved considerably when I found a drop-in 
 replacement called wicd (http://wicd.sf.net).

My router burned out this morning (nice smell of ozone), and when I went to the nerd store to get another, my eee pc was there on sale for $249, $100 less than I paid for it. The sign on it says "last one".

IMHO people noticed 10'' is the perfect keyboard access/portability combination, so 9'' fell sharply out of favor. Andrei
Dec 30 2008
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Andrei,

 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 Got to say, Linux's #1 drawback is lack of solid wireless support.
 It can get very, very unnerving. Particularly because of the
 chicken-and-egg thing: you install Linux and you want to get the
 wifi working, but you can't download the appropriate driver because
 you can't connect. Then the default network-manager is really
 crappy. My Linux experience improved considerably when I found a
 drop-in replacement called wicd (http://wicd.sf.net).
 

went to the nerd store to get another, my eee pc was there on sale for $249, $100 less than I paid for it. The sign on it says "last one".

combination, so 9'' fell sharply out of favor. Andrei

I'd say it was the small screen more than the keyboard (which they made larger in the next asus eee release). But, I think the reason really is that ASUS lost out to all the other better options that flooded the market after their initial release. It's true that most of these probably had a larger keyboard as well, though. But they also had a larger screen, more memory, and much more hard drive space. :) -JJR
Dec 30 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 I'd say it was the small screen more than the keyboard (which they made 
 larger in the next asus eee release).  But, I think the reason really is 
 that ASUS lost out to all the other better options that flooded the 
 market after their initial release.  It's true that most of these 
 probably had a larger keyboard as well, though.  But they also had a 
 larger screen, more memory, and much more hard drive space. :)

They'll get bigger and bigger, till someone revolutionizes the market again with a small one!
Dec 30 2008
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 John Reimer wrote:
 
 I'd say it was the small screen more than the keyboard (which they
 made larger in the next asus eee release).  But, I think the reason
 really is that ASUS lost out to all the other better options that
 flooded the market after their initial release.  It's true that most
 of these probably had a larger keyboard as well, though.  But they
 also had a larger screen, more memory, and much more hard drive
 space. :)
 

again with a small one!

lol! :D
Dec 30 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c105848cb368cfc3632e0 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:gj6mld$294o$1 digitalmars.com...

 John Reimer wrote:

 Incidentally, I'm still using my Compaq Presario X1000 laptop
 (Pentium M 1.4 GHz) which is probably close to 6 years old now.
 I've updated certain aspects of it and fixed it a couple of times.
 Amazingly it keeps running... and performs quite well for my needs.

how old it is, but when the power supply failed and I went to the nerd store to replace it, the guy said "I haven't seen one of these power supply configurations in years!" He sent me to the local pc recycler, where I got one out of a bin for $10.

flurry of posts involving words like "archaic": Mine's a:

Ha! :) I should confess something here. Two or three years ago, I actually purchased components and built two AMD Athlon 64 systems for myself (sequentially... not both at once). The last one was a dual core. But I gave them away to family and settled on just using my old laptop. Both systems had fairly powerful graphics cards in them too. They were good systems and were great for playing the latest flight simulators... but I decided I wanted to spend less time on games. :). Right now the dual core system is put to very good use by my younger brother and sisters for video editing... one can never get too much power or memory for that task. Also, nowadays, video-editing among non-professionals is quite common... so I think there may just be a whole lot more justification for buying into some of these powerful systems than you might realize.

Oh yea, absolutely. Like I said, if I were one of the people out there that did a lot of video editing, I would want an upgrade, but I just don't really do that much of it. But video editing is one of the reasons I switched from my old AMD cpu to the 1.7 GHz Celeron: Premiere Pro requires...I think it's SSE2 it needs...but whatever it was, my older AMD CPU just didn't have it. (I do have a few beefs with Premiere, but I've just never liked any of the consumer-level editing apps...In fact I rarely like consumer-level apps at all. They're like the Fisher Price of software, except adults use them.)
 - 1.7 GHz Celeron (was a 1.2GHz AMD K6-2 for a long time, but I bought
 this CPU/MB off someone for about $25, seems to be about the same
 performance though (makes sense, Celerons are notoriously low on
 cache, or at least were last I checked)).

I've never heard of a 1.2 GHz K6-2. Was that overclocked or something? I think most of those maxed out at 500 MHz. I've used k6-3's and k6-2+'s before. Excellent CPU's for the time.

You're right, it wasn't a K6-2, I'm not sure why I was thinking that (I don't think I've ever even owned a K6-2). It was an Athlon Thunderbird.
 - The motherboard's USB is v1.x

I can't stand USB v1.x ... it's way to slow for hard drive operation. The bandwidth just isn't sufficient anymore.

The only external HD I've been using is my portable media player, and I haven't had too much of a problem just setting up a batch copy and doing something else in the meantime. I do have a $20 USB 2.0 add-in card though. I don't remember if I actually have it plugged in at the moment though, this motherboard's pretty limited on expansion ports.
 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)

Exactly my point ;) Average Joe Consumer sees all of this "Wireless! Wireless! Wireless!" hoopla and thinks it's "just simply better". Meanwhile, people like us are well aware that wireless is worse than wired in pretty much every area besides the convenience of not having a cord.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent reply Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Nick,
 

 
 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

Wired is not necessarily backwards. :) Despite the tangly lines, it's just easier to keep secure. -JJR

Yeah. It's a tradeoff. I use both wired and wireless. They complement each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available. Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)
Dec 28 2008
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Chad J wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Nick,

 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

Wired is not necessarily backwards. :) Despite the tangly lines, it's just easier to keep secure. -JJR

Yeah. It's a tradeoff. I use both wired and wireless. They complement each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available. Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)

Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.) Andrei
Dec 28 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gj9d1m$1boc$3 digitalmars.com...
 Chad J wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Nick,

 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

Wired is not necessarily backwards. :) Despite the tangly lines, it's just easier to keep secure. -JJR

Yeah. It's a tradeoff. I use both wired and wireless. They complement each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available. Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)

Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)

Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).
Dec 28 2008
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj9d1m$1boc$3 digitalmars.com...
 Chad J wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Nick,

 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

just easier to keep secure. -JJR

each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available. Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)


Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).

Dec 29 2008
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Don wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj9d1m$1boc$3 digitalmars.com...
 Chad J wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Nick,

 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
 I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
 small business's wireless network with a wired one.

 And now I'll stop rambling ;)

just easier to keep secure. -JJR

complement each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available. Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)


Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).


That pretty much settled the issue for me :o). I'd add that wired is not the speed bottleneck when connecting from home to the Internet. The DSL/cable connections go well below wireless' 54 Mbps. That being said, whenever I want to transfer some large amounts of data across my home computers, I invariably give up wireless in frustration and end up rummaging through my drawer for a cable. Andrei
Dec 29 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader GeForceMX 2 
 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one for about $40 and 
 wanted to play around with pixel shaders).

I don't have a graphics card because of heat/fan/noise.
 - The motherboard's USB is v1.x

So's mine, and that really sucks. I'm going to get a card with 2.0 on it. USB is a home run, kudos to the designers of it.
 - 21" CRT I got from a CompUSA store-closing for $25. (Funny thing is, this 
 was made years ago and goes higher than HD resolution and has no native 
 resolution, good contrast, no ghosting, no realistic risk of burn-in, and 
 zero frames of "image processing" delay. Silly people and their 
 hundreds/thousands-of-dollars LCD/Plasma/DLP HDTVs ;) ) I can't hang it on 
 the wall, but what do I care? My desk's big enough.

I'm not with you there. I hated that gigantic leaden monster on my desk, and was happy to upgrade it to a sleek lcd.
 
 So, yea, about on par with you two. (Although I do have damn near a TB of HD 
 space and still crave more...yea, I'm a packrat.) The only thing about it 
 that I feel is insufficient is the number of PCI ports (it's one of those 
 reduced-size motherboards...in a non-reduced-size case), but I'm still 
 getting by.
 
 I do some occasional video processing/editing, 3D stuff (mainly to learn 
 it), and gaming (but nothing like Gears of War or Halo or anything like 
 that, besides I prefer to game on a living-room console). If I were to get 
 really serious about any of those things, I would probably want a new 
 system, but I don't do enough of them to really justify it.

I tried video editing, it's a no-go on my system. Not even close.
 I would kind of like the convenience of a laptop (mine's dead), but the only 
 reason I'd be interested in the fancier CPUs on that is for the reduced 
 heat/power consumption.
 
 Speaking of laptops, if anyone hears about a company that makes quality 
 laptops with an actual built-in trackball, let me know. I can't stand those 
 awful touchpads or IBM's "nubs", and dragging around a real trackball in 
 addition to power cord, etc, starts taking away from the whole "portability" 
 thing.

I bought an eee pc, as in a laptop I'm interested in portability, not desktop replacement.
 One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better": I've 
 been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her small 
 business's wireless network with a wired one.

When my house was built, I wired up every room with 2 cat5's and 2 RG6 coaxes (had to do it myself, as the electrician had no idea how to install it). I had no use for it at the time (10 years ago) but these days it's fantastic to have. I keep finding more and more uses for it, and just ordered another hub for all the new stuff. I plan on rewiring my distribution panel to make it look more professional rather than a plate of spaghetti <g>.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader
 GeForceMX 2 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one
 for about $40 and wanted to play around with pixel shaders).
 


I assume you must have an integrated chipset.
 - The motherboard's USB is v1.x
 

it. USB is a home run, kudos to the designers of it.

yep. :)
 I tried video editing, it's a no-go on my system. Not even close.
 

Yep, you need lots of ram and lots of power for video editing. 64-bit is already supported by some of the leading video editing packages (maybe most, not sure).
 I bought an eee pc, as in a laptop I'm interested in portability, not
 desktop replacement.
 

Heh, I did the same. Unfortunately, I jumped on the bandwagon too early and got the one with the smaller screen and the 3 cell battery. I can use it... but I am really disappointed that I don't have the larger screen version and longer battery life. Also the competition for eee pc provided several better alternatives. MSI had one really good product which my brother bought. Alas, I can't justify another purchase, so I try to make do with my eee pc when I go on trips. -JJR
Dec 27 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Also the competition for eee pc provided several better alternatives.  
 MSI had one really good product which my brother bought.   Alas, I can't 
 justify another purchase, so I try to make do with my eee pc when I go 
 on trips.

I have the dinky screen, but it's fine. I also love it's ability to operate as a video skype-phone. Skype on the eee is a killer app, in my opinion.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader 
 GeForceMX 2 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one 
 for about $40 and wanted to play around with pixel shaders).

I don't have a graphics card because of heat/fan/noise.

It's possible to get a GeForce 6800 with a passive cooler (heatsink) instead of a fan. I bet you can get a newer one as well, though you may have to opt for the "mobile" version. Either way, I've got an 8800 with a fan right now but it's really very quiet--it pays to read reviews that discuss noise levels of various brands. Sean
Dec 28 2008
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 - Graphics card that's pixel shader v1 (was a pre-pixel-shader 
 GeForceMX 2 for a long time, only upgraded because I found this one 
 for about $40 and wanted to play around with pixel shaders).

I don't have a graphics card because of heat/fan/noise.

It's possible to get a GeForce 6800 with a passive cooler (heatsink) instead of a fan. I bet you can get a newer one as well, though you may have to opt for the "mobile" version. Either way, I've got an 8800 with a fan right now but it's really very quiet--it pays to read reviews that discuss noise levels of various brands.

My EVGA 7200GS/256MB has no active cooler either. Truth be told, it gets as hot as a cheerleader. I hasten to say that I wasn't really needing the video performance... but it was free after rebate :o). Andrei
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs the 
 question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do 
 perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame me 
 into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", that 
 leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

I agree that often there is little incentive to upgrade. In particular incentive can be negative when it comes to Vista vs. XP. [snip]
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's not 
 about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the current 
 standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any compiler 
 implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?

Even in 32-bit "legacy" mode, 64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway.

Talk about adding insult to injury. This is a rather random statement to make. Really, browsing the Web, writing documents, or writing emails is all you want from a computer? I'd say, until computers are not at least potentially capable of doing most intellectual tasks that people do, we're not in the position to say that computers are fast enough. When seen from that perspective, computers are absurdly slow and scarce in resources. The human brain's capacity bypasses our largest systems by a few orders of magnitude, and if we want to claim doing anything close, we should at least have that capacity. But even way, way before that, any NLP or speech recognition system that does anything interesting needs days, weeks, or months to train on computer clusters, when it all should run in real time. Please understand that from that perspective the claim that computers are plenty fast and memory is plenty large is rather shortsighted. Andrei
Dec 27 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gj6mds$28iv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs the 
 question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do 
 perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame 
 me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", 
 that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

I agree that often there is little incentive to upgrade. In particular incentive can be negative when it comes to Vista vs. XP.

I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. But yea, that alone isn't enough to balance out the reasons against upgrading.
 [snip]
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's not 
 about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the current 
 standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any compiler 
 implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?

Even in 32-bit "legacy" mode, 64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway.

Talk about adding insult to injury. This is a rather random statement to make. Really, browsing the Web, writing documents, or writing emails is all you want from a computer? I'd say, until computers are not at least potentially capable of doing most intellectual tasks that people do, we're not in the position to say that computers are fast enough. When seen from that perspective, computers are absurdly slow and scarce in resources. The human brain's capacity bypasses our largest systems by a few orders of magnitude, and if we want to claim doing anything close, we should at least have that capacity. But even way, way before that, any NLP or speech recognition system that does anything interesting needs days, weeks, or months to train on computer clusters, when it all should run in real time. Please understand that from that perspective the claim that computers are plenty fast and memory is plenty large is rather shortsighted.

When a reasonably-priced computer comes around that can actually do those sorts of things, I may very well be finally enticed to upgrade. But like you said, as it stands right now, even the high-end stuff can't do it. So it's really a non-issue for now.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj6mds$28iv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs the 
 question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do 
 perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame 
 me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", 
 that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

incentive can be negative when it comes to Vista vs. XP.

I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. But yea, that alone isn't enough to balance out the reasons against upgrading.
 [snip]
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's not 
 about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the current 
 standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any compiler 
 implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?


make. Really, browsing the Web, writing documents, or writing emails is all you want from a computer? I'd say, until computers are not at least potentially capable of doing most intellectual tasks that people do, we're not in the position to say that computers are fast enough. When seen from that perspective, computers are absurdly slow and scarce in resources. The human brain's capacity bypasses our largest systems by a few orders of magnitude, and if we want to claim doing anything close, we should at least have that capacity. But even way, way before that, any NLP or speech recognition system that does anything interesting needs days, weeks, or months to train on computer clusters, when it all should run in real time. Please understand that from that perspective the claim that computers are plenty fast and memory is plenty large is rather shortsighted.

When a reasonably-priced computer comes around that can actually do those sorts of things, I may very well be finally enticed to upgrade. But like you said, as it stands right now, even the high-end stuff can't do it. So it's really a non-issue for now.

I don't understand. This is like a reply to another thread. This anyone would agree with. I agree that for your current computing work and perceived needs you don't feel about upgrading your hardware. I mean, what's really there to disagree. But that has nothing to do with the generalizations aired before a la "64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway" or that there's no need for 64-bit. To write software that tackles hard problems one really needs the fastest hardware one's budget can buy. I can't understand what you say except in the frame that you indiscriminately assume that everybody else has your wants and needs from a computer (and consequently is a snob for getting a relatively fast one). Really that's a rather... unsophisticated world view to go by. I'm even amazed I need to spell this out. Andrei
Dec 27 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gj7591$2tec$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj6mds$28iv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs 
 the question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it 
 to do perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to 
 shame me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system 
 "legacy", that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

incentive can be negative when it comes to Vista vs. XP.

I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. But yea, that alone isn't enough to balance out the reasons against upgrading.
 [snip]
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's 
 not about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the 
 current standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any 
 compiler implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?


make. Really, browsing the Web, writing documents, or writing emails is all you want from a computer? I'd say, until computers are not at least potentially capable of doing most intellectual tasks that people do, we're not in the position to say that computers are fast enough. When seen from that perspective, computers are absurdly slow and scarce in resources. The human brain's capacity bypasses our largest systems by a few orders of magnitude, and if we want to claim doing anything close, we should at least have that capacity. But even way, way before that, any NLP or speech recognition system that does anything interesting needs days, weeks, or months to train on computer clusters, when it all should run in real time. Please understand that from that perspective the claim that computers are plenty fast and memory is plenty large is rather shortsighted.

When a reasonably-priced computer comes around that can actually do those sorts of things, I may very well be finally enticed to upgrade. But like you said, as it stands right now, even the high-end stuff can't do it. So it's really a non-issue for now.

I don't understand. This is like a reply to another thread. This anyone would agree with. I agree that for your current computing work and perceived needs you don't feel about upgrading your hardware. I mean, what's really there to disagree. But that has nothing to do with the generalizations aired before a la "64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway" or that there's no need for 64-bit. To write software that tackles hard problems one really needs the fastest hardware one's budget can buy. I can't understand what you say except in the frame that you indiscriminately assume that everybody else has your wants and needs from a computer (and consequently is a snob for getting a relatively fast one). Really that's a rather... unsophisticated world view to go by. I'm even amazed I need to spell this out.

You didn't need to spell it out, you just needed to pay more attention to what I've said, as you appear to have misunderstood much of it. I've flat out said a number of times by now that, yes, there are legitimate uses for 64-bit. Heck even my original post regarding 64-bit indicated as much ("What are you writing, video editors and 3D modeling apps?"). What I *have* been saying is that #1 **I** am not currently interested in 64-bit, and #2 I feel there are too many people out there that only *think* they need it, and even worse, expect that everyone else should also be jumping head-first into 64-bit just because it's there. (Note again, that in that previous sentence, I did *not* indicate that "no one" has a need for 64-bit). Nowhere have I ever said that 64-bit is and forever will be useless for everyone. Please stop coloring my comments in that light. (I do, however, stand by my comment that *right now* trying to maximize performance on 64-bit machines is usually a misspent effort. For instance, certain game developers, like Epic and Crytek, have been focusing their target systems and optimization efforts on high-end stuff. That's just stupid as it artificially shrinks their target market. They'd be better off putting their optimization effort on lower-ends so that they can *increase* their market instead. But, yes, obviously there are going to be fringe-case exceptions even with this, such as researchers writing custom DNA-processing code that's only ever going to run on their super-duper-cluster.)
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj7591$2tec$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj6mds$28iv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs 
 the question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it 
 to do perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to 
 shame me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system 
 "legacy", that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

incentive can be negative when it comes to Vista vs. XP.

suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. But yea, that alone isn't enough to balance out the reasons against upgrading.
 [snip]
 so supporting 64bit is just supporting the current technology. it's 
 not about fancy servers or anything like that, just supporting the 
 current standards. that's a minimun that should be expected from any 
 compiler implementation nowadays.
 b) even though for now there is a compatability mode in most OSes, why 
 would I want to limit the performance and abilities of my PC to old 
 technology which is being faded away?


make. Really, browsing the Web, writing documents, or writing emails is all you want from a computer? I'd say, until computers are not at least potentially capable of doing most intellectual tasks that people do, we're not in the position to say that computers are fast enough. When seen from that perspective, computers are absurdly slow and scarce in resources. The human brain's capacity bypasses our largest systems by a few orders of magnitude, and if we want to claim doing anything close, we should at least have that capacity. But even way, way before that, any NLP or speech recognition system that does anything interesting needs days, weeks, or months to train on computer clusters, when it all should run in real time. Please understand that from that perspective the claim that computers are plenty fast and memory is plenty large is rather shortsighted.

sorts of things, I may very well be finally enticed to upgrade. But like you said, as it stands right now, even the high-end stuff can't do it. So it's really a non-issue for now.

would agree with. I agree that for your current computing work and perceived needs you don't feel about upgrading your hardware. I mean, what's really there to disagree. But that has nothing to do with the generalizations aired before a la "64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway" or that there's no need for 64-bit. To write software that tackles hard problems one really needs the fastest hardware one's budget can buy. I can't understand what you say except in the frame that you indiscriminately assume that everybody else has your wants and needs from a computer (and consequently is a snob for getting a relatively fast one). Really that's a rather... unsophisticated world view to go by. I'm even amazed I need to spell this out.

You didn't need to spell it out, you just needed to pay more attention to what I've said, as you appear to have misunderstood much of it. I've flat out said a number of times by now that, yes, there are legitimate uses for 64-bit. Heck even my original post regarding 64-bit indicated as much ("What are you writing, video editors and 3D modeling apps?"). What I *have* been saying is that #1 **I** am not currently interested in 64-bit, and #2 I feel there are too many people out there that only *think* they need it, and even worse, expect that everyone else should also be jumping head-first into 64-bit just because it's there. (Note again, that in that previous sentence, I did *not* indicate that "no one" has a need for 64-bit). Nowhere have I ever said that 64-bit is and forever will be useless for everyone. Please stop coloring my comments in that light.

As usual, we're in better agreement with your much more mellow follow-ups. It's hard to not misunderstand you (ahem) when there's no effort in qualifying the statements I've been commenting about. You have to admit that ``Even in 32-bit "legacy" mode, 64-bit systems are absurdly fast anyway'' is pretty much hard to misunderstand, no matter how much attention one pays. I mean, that's not going to be implicitly qualified with "for my needs". And particularly because it's followed by ``I mean, what's the slowest 64-bit x86 out there? A chip that's still pretty damn fast, that's what.'' I guess if I paid attention I would've read the "...to me" appendage. I'd say you have no case, which happens to me rather often; what I do is to simply admit I exaggerated and move on, even though I know deep inside that with the qualifications that I meant and with the nuances that were lost, I was more right than wrong. Well I'm not going to continue this asinine "but you said this"/"but I didn't mean that" exchange as it's a waste of your time and mine, to say nothing about that Christmas spirit. Andrei
Dec 28 2008
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Well I'm not going to continue this asinine "but you said this"/"but I 
 didn't mean that" exchange as it's a waste of your time and mine, to say 
 nothing about that Christmas spirit.

On Christmas day you can't get sore. Your fellow man you must adore. There's time to rob him all the more the other 364.
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a a.a)'s article
 But, yes, obviously there are going to be fringe-case
 exceptions even with this, such as researchers writing custom DNA-processing
 code that's only ever going to run on their super-duper-cluster.)

I'm one of these researchers, and it would make my life a heck of a lot easier if I could fit the entire human genome in my address space. I don't do that much sequence analysis, or lack of 64-bit would be a deal-breaker for D. I mostly do microarray analysis, which usually fits much better in 32-bit address space, unless I start doing things like pairwise analysis among probes (some machine learning techniques require this). However, once in a while when my research does take a turn into genome sequence land, the 2-gig address space limit feels like a HUGE artificial limitation. The alternative is to switch to nematode genomics, as their genome could have fit into my old Pentium II's RAM.
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Brian wrote:
 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
 suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. 

So does thunar :)

Konqueror, too. But of course that would be too little a reason to make the switcharoo. Andrei
Dec 28 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gj9cq1$1boc$1 digitalmars.com...
 Brian wrote:
 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
 suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.

So does thunar :)

Konqueror, too. But of course that would be too little a reason to make the switcharoo.

While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though.
Dec 28 2008
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj9cq1$1boc$1 digitalmars.com...
 Brian wrote:
 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
 suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.


the switcharoo.

While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though.

Most people say *nix for Unix/Linux. BSD is Unix, so no need to specify that separately. You could single out Minix, though. And I usually use bash as my file manager, but it isn't great for that. Decent, but not great.
Dec 28 2008
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:gj9cq1$1boc$1 digitalmars.com...
 Brian wrote:
 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename 
 (minus
 suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.


make the switcharoo.

While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though.

Most people say *nix for Unix/Linux. BSD is Unix, so no need to specify that separately. You could single out Minix, though. And I usually use bash as my file manager, but it isn't great for that. Decent, but not great.

Command line is definitely more powerful than any GUI shell (I use and would recommend zsh) - of course after you took the time to learn it. It's like using a language versus navigating canned forms. Andrei
Dec 29 2008
prev sibling parent =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julio=20C=e9sar=20Carrascal=20Urquijo?= <jcarrascal gmail.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename
 (minus suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. But
 yea, that alone isn't enough to balance out the reasons against
 upgrading.

I can recommend ExplorerXP for this: http://www.explorerxp.com/ Try renaming multiple files, it's like search and replace.
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj6e3m$1ilv$1 digitalmars.com...
 two things:
 a) current hardware is 64bit (if you go and buy a PC),

Ah ha, there's that usual "if you go and buy a PC" catch. Which begs the question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

I tried that. But these days, it's *really* hard to find AT hard drives to replace the ones that fail.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Christopher,

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:gj6e3m$1ilv$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 two things:
 a) current hardware is 64bit (if you go and buy a PC),

the question, why would I? My existing system does everything I need it to do perfectly fine. And since I'm not petty enough to allow anyone to shame me into buying a new system just by calling my *current* system "legacy", that leaves no real reason for me to buy a new one.

drives to replace the ones that fail.

Hmm... you just reminded me of one of the big reasons I was motivated to upgrade my computers. It wasn't always about an insatiable desire for bigger, better, faster. I really disliked the whole "legacy" support engineered into the PC hardware -- it made things a horrible pain to fix and troubleshoot. The PC hardware had to be consistantly designed for legacy 16-bit support because DOS/win95/win98 still had a strong hold on things. Wishful thinking dictated that upgrading to the next thing would make things that much better and easier to fix/upgrade. To some extent this may have been true. USB saved us from endless dip switches and jumper changing (DMA/IRQ setup of COM/PARALLEL/Network ports were horrible -- remember the conflicts?) and improved the idea of hot-plugging. SATA drives eliminated setting drives to master/slave and figuring out which drive went where on PATA IDE channels. CMOS settings got better and more comprehensive. Hardware got more integrated reducing the need for expansion cards. So, I'll have to admit that the so-called "craze" to move on from Legacy systems in not really as bad as it sounds. Legacy systems were really quite horrid to use and setup for many years. So much of the advantage of modern system is reduced complexity in terms of upgrades and maintenance. There were certainly advantages to be had the more removed one advanced from the legacy hardware. I may have actually reached a point where my motivation to upgrade was significantly dampened by the fact that PC's technology had finally progressed to a more acceptable usability/maintenance levels. Improvements in technology seem to be less about usability now and more about power and performance. Perhaps, we've just finally managed to shake all those legacy trappings that were hampering us for so long. -JJR
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 I may have actually reached a point where my motivation to upgrade was
 significantly dampened by the fact that PC's technology had finally
 progressed to a more acceptable usability/maintenance levels.  Improvements
 in technology seem to be less about usability now and more about power and
 performance.  Perhaps, we've just finally managed to shake all those legacy
 trappings that were hampering us for so long.

I think that's the real issue. For the kinds of things 90% of users need, current PCs are plenty fast. Really faster than they need to be. That's why computer hardware folks are sweating, particularly processor makers. The number of people who can benefit from their latest and greatest is just not as large a percentage of folks as it used to be. I agree with Andrei that we haven't even come close to the limit of the number of cycles we can use yet, but it seems we're at a bit of a dip in terms of the number of useful new applications possible with the number of cycles we have. We have way more power than we need for doing word processing, but still not enough to do interesting AI. That's assuming we even knew how to do some kind of AI that would be useful to average users. --bb
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:57:39 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:45:57 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 ... judging by number of people here asking for
 64-bit, I find it highly unlikely that most of them have plans to work on
 such things either.

My interest in 64-bit hardware support is based on the belief that before too long, buying a new 32-bit platform might be a difficult thing to do. Five years from now, I don't want to be forced into finding a good second-hand machine just so I can work with D.

I don't want to be forced into buying a new 64-bit machine just because a whole bunch of "gotta have the faciest stuff out there" people have deemed 32-bit insufficient for all computing needs.

And neither do I, but the momentum is far too strong for me to affect, so I assume that it won't be long before I will be forced to get a 64-bit machine - even if I don't want to.
 Besides, can't 64-bit machines run 32-bit code?

Sure, the same way the 32-bit machines run 16-bit software, and that's not giving anyone troubles ;-) -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent David Ferenczi <raggae ferenczi.net> writes:
I second this.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:gj1olu$1390$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

- ARM7/ARM9 - Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller - Mac osx 32 bit intel - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the .net and jvm standard libs)

To elaborate: 1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.) 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages? I should also add near the top of my list, "the CPUs of all major game consoles". I think console game programmers are very much in need of a language that doesn't suck as horribly as C++, and D is the only one out there that doesn't contain fundamental deal-breakers for modern console game dev.

Dec 29 2008
prev sibling parent Daniel de Kok <me nowhere.nospam> writes:
On 2008-12-26 06:18:33 +0100, "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> said:
 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the
 limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working
 on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

Natural language processing. E.g. most parsers and generators with a wide-coverage grammar will need a lot of memory, since ambiguity of sentences increases dramatically with sentence length. Or to give a specific example: we have recently extended some techniques for error mining in parsing results. In natural language parsing, a possible parsing failure is the inability to find a parse that spans a whole sentence (as opposed to e.g. an incorrect parse). Error mining tries to find the most probable causes (words or phrases) for the such parsing failures. If iterative error mining methods are applied to parsing results of large corpera (or domain-specific corpera where a relatively large number of sentences fail to parse), it's easy to break the 4GB barrier. -- Daniel
Dec 30 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the
 limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working
 on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?

Games. See http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/x86-64.ars/5

Interesting read. Basically it's not the game playing they say requires 64-bit, but the game authoring. That I can certainly believe. On the other hand it mentions reports of 30% speed-ups on 64-bit platforms from the Counter Strike developers. But apparently that has nothing to do with having a 64-bit address space, but rather because the x86-64 architecture has more registers and because the 64-bit CPUs at the time of writing (c. 2002) had some other performance features that were missing from the x86-32 CPUs of the time. I'm guessing all but the difference in # of regs has leveled out by now. Wonder what % boost that gives these days. --bb
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent Brian <digitalmars brianguertin.com> writes:
 I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
 suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that. 

So does thunar :)
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Mac OSX 32 and 64 intel Windows 32 and 64 Linux 32 and 64 WinCE on ARM (yeah, I know it's not on the list, but it matters) Linux on ARM (ditto) Or, better yet: Cross-platform C code. Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Chad J wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

Mac OSX 32 and 64 intel Windows 32 and 64 Linux 32 and 64 WinCE on ARM (yeah, I know it's not on the list, but it matters) Linux on ARM (ditto) Or, better yet: Cross-platform C code. Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

P.S. The C backend would allow DMD to target game consoles that don't even have D compilers. I don't think you, or anyone around, is likely to write D compilers for every piece of hardware the console game industry feels like pumping out. At least not for some years.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling
Dec 25 2008
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj1psc$14q2$1 digitalmars.com...
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

Can't the normal exception handling boilerplating just be placed explicity in the functions? Or, I guess maybe that would require code that was specific to C-compiler/CPU combination?
Dec 25 2008
parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Nick,

 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:gj1psc$14q2$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Chad J wrote:
 
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the
 others.


explicity in the functions? Or, I guess maybe that would require code that was specific to C-compiler/CPU combination?

macros!!!
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

Perhaps you could emit C++ code that is nearly identical to C code. This then gives you the exception handling. For targets that don't have a C++ compiler, generate C. Exception handling will just have to be broken on those. In terms of everything on the list and game consoles, this should work, no? It might be a problem for the microcontrollers mentioned elsewhere in this thread, since those may only have the C compilers available. I can live with this. (They'll only be missing exception handling support... I suspect there'll be bigger problems on these machines.) Maybe there is a better way? At any rate, please don't just give up on this! GAME CONSOLES Walter! GAME CONSOLES! ;)
Dec 25 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gj1uou$1ctu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

At any rate, please don't just give up on this! GAME CONSOLES Walter! GAME CONSOLES! ;)

Yea, I've always seen videogames as one of the biggest and best applictions for D, and the main one that originally got me excited for it. But without the ability to use it on game-consoles/embedded-cpus/microcontrollers, it'll never be worthwhile for most developers. They'd be forced into just one platform, the PC (In this case, I'm including Mac as a "Personal Computer").
Dec 26 2008
next sibling parent reply Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:
Nick Sabalausky :
 "Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj1uou$1ctu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.


GAME CONSOLES! ;)

Yea, I've always seen videogames as one of the biggest and best applictions for D, and the main one that originally got me excited for it. But without the ability to use it on game-consoles/embedded-cpus/microcontrollers, it'll never be worthwhile for most developers. They'd be forced into just one platform, the PC (In this case, I'm including Mac as a "Personal Computer").

It seems to me it is necessary to reconsider it: Support for 16 bit computers. No consideration is given in D for mixed near/far pointers and all the machinations necessary to generate good 16 bit code. The D language design assumes at least a 32 bit flat memory space. D will fit smoothly into 64 bit architectures. (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/overview.html)
Dec 26 2008
parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Weed Wrote:

 The D language design assumes at least a 32 bit flat memory
 space. D will fit smoothly into 64 bit architectures.
 (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/overview.html)

How well D will work on 64 bit systems of the future depends a lot on if they'll remain optimized for 32 bit operations or not.
Dec 26 2008
parent reply Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:
Jason House :
 Weed Wrote:
 
 The D language design assumes at least a 32 bit flat memory
 space. D will fit smoothly into 64 bit architectures.
 (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/overview.html)

How well D will work on 64 bit systems of the future depends a lot on if they'll remain optimized for 32 bit operations or not.

I am still worried about 16bit :) would like to D has been a universal language
Dec 26 2008
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Weed (resume755 mail.ru)'s article
 I am still worried about 16bit :)
 would like to D has been a universal language

Pardon my ignorance, but who still uses 16-bit? I thought even most embedded systems in this day and age are at least 32-bit.
Dec 26 2008
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:gj34uf$9f4$1 digitalmars.com...
 == Quote from Weed (resume755 mail.ru)'s article
 I am still worried about 16bit :)
 would like to D has been a universal language

Pardon my ignorance, but who still uses 16-bit? I thought even most embedded systems in this day and age are at least 32-bit.

Retro homebrew game dev.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Adam D. Ruppe (destructionator gmail.com)'s article
 On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 05:40:31PM +0000, dsimcha wrote:
 Pardon my ignorance, but who still uses 16-bit?  I thought even most embedded
 systems in this day and age are at least 32-bit.


Yes, but D is explicitly *not* supposed to be for legacy systems. Of course, I wouldn't mind 16-bit support if it only affects things at an implementation level, but I absolutely don't want the language to accumulate a bunch of spec-level artifacts from this.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 05:40:31PM +0000, dsimcha wrote:
 Pardon my ignorance, but who still uses 16-bit?  I thought even most embedded
 systems in this day and age are at least 32-bit.

I sometimes still work on old point of sale systems that run MS-DOS.

C is the best language for DOS. Just as C is no good for 8 bit programming, C++ and D are just not suited to 16 bit programming.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling parent reply Michael P. <baseball.mjp gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj1uou$1ctu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

At any rate, please don't just give up on this! GAME CONSOLES Walter! GAME CONSOLES! ;)

Yea, I've always seen videogames as one of the biggest and best applictions for D, and the main one that originally got me excited for it. But without the ability to use it on game-consoles/embedded-cpus/microcontrollers, it'll never be worthwhile for most developers. They'd be forced into just one platform, the PC (In this case, I'm including Mac as a "Personal Computer").

http://forums.qj.net/showthread.php?t=142864&highlight=programming+language
Dec 26 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Michael P." <baseball.mjp gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gj39a7$gb0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:gj1uou$1ctu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the 
 others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

At any rate, please don't just give up on this! GAME CONSOLES Walter! GAME CONSOLES! ;)

Yea, I've always seen videogames as one of the biggest and best applictions for D, and the main one that originally got me excited for it. But without the ability to use it on game-consoles/embedded-cpus/microcontrollers, it'll never be worthwhile for most developers. They'd be forced into just one platform, the PC (In this case, I'm including Mac as a "Personal Computer").

http://forums.qj.net/showthread.php?t=142864&highlight=programming+language

GDC seems to be dying. Not that GCC is all that great to begin with.
Dec 26 2008
parent Michael P. <baseball.mjp gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Michael P." <baseball.mjp gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj39a7$gb0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:gj1uou$1ctu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the 
 others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

At any rate, please don't just give up on this! GAME CONSOLES Walter! GAME CONSOLES! ;)

Yea, I've always seen videogames as one of the biggest and best applictions for D, and the main one that originally got me excited for it. But without the ability to use it on game-consoles/embedded-cpus/microcontrollers, it'll never be worthwhile for most developers. They'd be forced into just one platform, the PC (In this case, I'm including Mac as a "Personal Computer").

http://forums.qj.net/showthread.php?t=142864&highlight=programming+language

GDC seems to be dying. Not that GCC is all that great to begin with.

If GDC was still actively updated, this would be great.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter Bright wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

Can't you do it with setjmp and longjmp? AFAIK, that's one of the ways g++ does it on windows for example. Jerome - -- mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklUm3UACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/NAACfYuR9i8OAFouR1dInFL2SGYoT 8hwAnAo9nNPRi6UwQvN5GrfTix/FeneE =Biub -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Chad J" <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gj1p0l$13pv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

Cross-platform C code. Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

Yes. This. Perfectly stated. Anyone that puts out a CPU makes a C compiler for it, sometimes C++, but rarely any other non-proprietary language, and (unfortunately) especially not D.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:
在 Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:25:31 +0800,Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> 写道:

 Chad J wrote:
 Or, better yet:
 Cross-platform C code.
 Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

The problem with generating C code is: exception handling

I think the solution is using wine macros or use reactos macros. Reactos claims their SEH macro is better.
Dec 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 05:40:31PM +0000, dsimcha wrote:
 Pardon my ignorance, but who still uses 16-bit?  I thought even most embedded
 systems in this day and age are at least 32-bit.

I sometimes still work on old point of sale systems that run MS-DOS. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling parent Weed <resume755 mail.ru> writes:
Chad J :
 Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

Mac OSX 32 and 64 intel Windows 32 and 64 Linux 32 and 64 WinCE on ARM (yeah, I know it's not on the list, but it matters) Linux on ARM (ditto) Or, better yet: Cross-platform C code. Get me that and I have a lot less reason to even care about the others.

And it seems to me, probably this will help to write programs on D for GPU (for CUDA-like engines)
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Eric Suen" <eric.suen.tech gmail.com> writes:
Why not just LLVM? let LLVM do the rest?

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other? 

Dec 25 2008
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Eric,

 Why not just LLVM? let LLVM do the rest?
 
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 other?
 


Good question. I suppose if the question had been asked like "What platforms for /D/ would you most be interested in using?" then we'd know that ldc could act as the implementation answer to that question... But since he said /dmd/, I'm not quite sure what this means. I guess it should be just taken to be a poll, and not a statement of intent. As long as dmd remains the reference compiler, then there will be interest in seeing the reference working on other "high priority" platforms. Seems like a lot of work to me when ldc could be developed to meet such goals. Then again, maybe ldc does factor into that picture, and we just don't know it yet. -JJR
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Victor Tyurin <eaglux gmail.com> writes:
LLVM!!!
Only LLVM!!!
Nothing more!!
It will be cross-platform out of the box!!!

Walter Bright пишет:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Dec 26 2008
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Victor Tyurin wrote:
 LLVM!!!
 Only LLVM!!!
 Nothing more!!
 It will be cross-platform out of the box!!!

But it doesn't even do win32 yet!
 
 Walter Bright пишет:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?


Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Victor Tyurin <eaglux gmail.com> writes:
Yo, Walter, do you want to beat GCC or LLVM?
Why don't you want to work on those front-ends?

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent digited <digited yandex.ru.removethis> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

No doubt, linux 64 bit.
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Mac OS X x86. ARMv7, (UNIX-based). Linux x64. JVM. Probably a D-to-C++/Python translator?
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Andrea[Cif]Agosti" <cifvts gmail.com> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:30:52 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 -- snip --

Linux 64 bit --=20 Andrea[Cif]Agosti <cifvts gmail.com> Jabber ID: cifvts jaim.at
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Win64
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Johan Granberg <lijat.meREM OVEgmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

linux 64 bit
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Was going to say linux 64 bit until someone mentioned game consoles...
Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Alan Knowles <alan akbkhome.com> writes:
freebsd 32 bit - This is the target platform for our live servers as the 
networking guy is a freebsd fanatic (drives me up the wall) - dmd should 
be a relatively easy port?


Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Dec 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Max Samukha <samukha voliacable.com.removethis> writes:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:30:52 -0800, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

.net
jvm
mac osx 32 bit intel
mac osx 64 bit intel
linux 64 bit
windows 64 bit
freebsd 32 bit
netbsd 32 bit

other?

Windows 64 Linux 64
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

Linux 64 bit.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me. That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones. So in my order of preference: Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC Mac OS X 32 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.) -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote in message 
news:gj595s$2bad$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> 
 said:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me. That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones. So in my order of preference: Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC Mac OS X 32 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

Ordinarily, I would agree with the need for PowerPC Mac support. But when one spends time in the Apple world, they really need to accept the fact that their systems will become abandoned at break-neck speed. That's just the way the Apple world works these days, and that will continue to be standard procedure for at least as long as Jobs in in charge.
Dec 27 2008
next sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote in message 
 news:gj595s$2bad$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> 
 said:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

to me. That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones. So in my order of preference: Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC Mac OS X 32 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

Ordinarily, I would agree with the need for PowerPC Mac support. But when one spends time in the Apple world, they really need to accept the fact that their systems will become abandoned at break-neck speed. That's just the way the Apple world works these days, and that will continue to be standard procedure for at least as long as Jobs in in charge.

There's nothing new. It was standard procedure when I programmed Macs in 1993-94. Apple has never given a damn about backwards compatibility.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2008-12-27 09:02:57 -0500, "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> said:

 Ordinarily, I would agree with the need for PowerPC Mac support. But when
 one spends time in the Apple world, they really need to accept the fact that
 their systems will become abandoned at break-neck speed. That's just the way
 the Apple world works these days, and that will continue to be standard
 procedure for at least as long as Jobs in in charge.

Apple doesn't care much about backward compatibility for most of its own apps, but still provide means for developers to work with older versions of the Mac OS. Using Xcode 2.0, you can develop applications targeted at Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther, a PowerPC-only OS), even on an Intel Mac. And using Xcode 1.5, which was updated to work properly on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, you can support as far as Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar). I don't expect Apple to remove PowerPC support from its devlopment tools until a few more years. After all, Apple relies on these development tools to support their own apps that need to work on older OSs, like iTunes which still works on Panther. It's true that most Apple apps and many third-party ones are only compatible with the two or three latest major operating system versions, but consider this: three major operating system versions would take us to Mac OS X 10.8 (10.6, Snow Leopard, being the first removing support for PowerPC), which can't really happen before 2012 or 2013. In the meanwhile, being able to compile apps only for Intel processors will be a disadventage for application developers choosing to work in D. That said, I concede that it'd be a little silly to do a big investment in a PowerPC D compiler for Mac OS X. But it's sad that I won't be able to use an eventual DMD for Mac OS X unless I buy a new computer. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doobnet gmail.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 On 2008-12-25 15:30:52 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> 
 said:
 
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

I'm on a PowerPC Mac right now so none of this is going to be very useful to me. That said, I'd be very happy if I could bundle a good D compiler with my D plugin for Xcode, even if it's Intel-only. Currently, the only option is GDC which isn't very appealing in its current state. GDC has one advantage though: it's super easy to build universal binaries (PowerPC + Intel architecture in one executable). Having an Intel-only compiler is a disadvantage when developing Mac apps. A consolation is that this will fade over time as PowerPC Macs will get replaced by new ones. So in my order of preference: Mac OS X 32 bit PowerPC Mac OS X 32 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit Intel Mac OS X 64 bit PowerPC (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

It would be really nice to be able to build 4-way universal binaries (that is, x86 and ppc, 32 and 64bit) with dmd for mac os x, but that feels like it's not going to happen in the nearest future.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

There was a ppc code generator at one time, but it got lost.
Dec 27 2008
parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2008-12-27 15:45:58 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:

 Michel Fortin wrote:
 (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

There was a ppc code generator at one time, but it got lost.

What do you mean, lost? Any chance of it being resurected? Even if it generates suboptimal code, it'd be great to have something that works. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Dec 28 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 On 2008-12-27 15:45:58 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> 
 said:
 
 Michel Fortin wrote:
 (Not that I expect to see DMD generate PowerPC code in a near future.)

There was a ppc code generator at one time, but it got lost.

What do you mean, lost?

The source code was lost. (I didn't write it.)
 Any chance of it being resurected? Even if it generates suboptimal code, 
 it'd be great to have something that works.

Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doobnet gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

The obvious answer to me is of course all the platforms. If I have to choose one, then it is mac os x. Then the question is if the should be 32bit or 64bit. If you think about it the answer should be 64bit because all mac computers now days are 64bit and the next mac os x version, Snow Leopard, is even more optimized than the current, Leopard, this picture illustrates this: http://images.appleinsider.com/road-to-sl-080826-6.gif But then on the other hand almost all libraries and applications are built for 32bit.
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dominik" <dominik REMOVETHISvga.hr> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:gj0qht$2lc1$1 digitalmars.com...
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit

 other?

in order of preference 1. win 32 and 64bit 2. OSX 32 and 64bit 3. Linux 32 and 64bit
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jim Hewes" <jimhewes gmail.com> writes:
.NET

But *only* if D had a way to fully support RAII. Otherwise, I'd just as soon 
use C#. I don't know if there is some technical reason why this couldn't be 
done. But I think C# and Java missed the ball on that. To me, the biggest 
pain in C# is that I need to implement Dispose and remember to call it. So D 
might have an advantage if it could do this better.

I should add that maybe my vote shouldn't count as much because I don't 
regularly use D at the moment although I like the language and I follow the 
newsgroup. I normally use C# when I can and C++ when I have to, the latter 
being 85% of the time at work. For our core product, we need to support 
Windows 32 and 64-bit, Linux, Mac, WinCE (x86 and ARM). And we need to 
export a C API. The only choice really is C++. I have to be honest, using D 
there would be a hard sell.:-( But for our peripheral projects, like utility 
apps and stuff, almost anything could be used. It's then a matter of getting 
fellow coworkers to agree to use a different language, which they usually 
would rather not do unfortunately.

If implementing D on .NET does nothing but increase its visibility as a 
legitimate language choice, then maybe it's a good thing.

Jim
Dec 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= writes:
Order of preference:
   Mac 32bit
   * 64bit
   .net
   --- below only theoretically interesting
   freebsd
   netbsd
   jvm


For my personal project I'm currently fine with only 32-bit x86 support. 
  Mac support would definitely be the most important step here, 
especially since many people I know which would like to use D are on 
Macs and are discouraged by the bad support for that platform. Also it 
will be an important platform for the time when the project goes public.

At work I would like to eventually start introducing D when D2 has 
settled a bit (the planned threading model will be very interesting 
there). In that environment all of Win/32/64 and Mac/32/64 would have to 
be supported. 64-bit support can be very useful there, as virtual 
address space is a major optimization target (image processing and 
database operations). In addition, 64-bit support is required by 
marketing needs alone (people with their shiny new Vista-64 PC asking 
why the software does not use their hardware properly). Currently we 
also still have to support PPC. I'm not sure how long that requirement 
holds, probably depends on Apple's own deprecation policy.

.NET support would be very welcome if it could act as a transparent 
bridge between D and .NET (same would go for D and Cocoa) - This would 
be the part where Managed C++ (or Objective-C++) is currently used. If 
.net should be supported before OS X, this could also be used as a nice 
platform replacement.
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Walter,

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 other?
 

whatever you decide to support, can it be fully open source?
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

My choice, BY FAR, would be Mac OSX 32 bit. When I started my current D project, six months ago or so, it looked like GDC mac support was on a steady, healthy incline, and that choosing D as a development platform would yield full mac compatibility in the very near future. Supporting the mac platform is absolutely essential for my product, so without a viable D compiler, I'll have to rewrite a bunch of code in C, which would make me very sad. The 64-bit win/lin/mac platforms would also be nice to have. But as long as every 64-bit OS provides legacy support for 32-bit apps, I consider a 64-bit D compiler pretty low priority, for the type of work I'm currently doing. The bsd platform is completely off my radar screen, and given Walter's limited resources, I'd be disappointed to see these given much attention. .NET and the JVM would be compelling for the marketing of D, making the language seem more mainstream and widely accessible. But I personally wouldn't find much use in them. The primary benefit of D, for me, is escaping from the confines of the VMs and being able to do system-level stuff. I frequently develop for both the CLR and the JVM, but when I do so, I prefer C# and Java, respectively. I can't think of a single reason I'd ever elect to write D for a VM platform. --benji PS -- Game console platforms would be very very cool as well. For me, I'd be interested in the cell processor, for the PS3. HOWEVER, since the native PS3 SDK is proprietary (with a $10,000 licensing fee), and since linux on the PS3 uses artificially crippled hardware, my interest in developing anything on the PS3 is little more than casual curiosity.
Dec 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Mac OS X 32-bit Intel Support for 64-bit and Vector would be "nice" across the board. But DMD2 support for Mac OS X 10.4-10.6 would be my preference. --anders
Dec 30 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Daniel de Kok <me nowhere.nospam> writes:
On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of decreasing precedence: Mac OS X 64-bit Intel Linux x86_64 Mac OS X 32-bit Intel I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all). Take care, Daniel
Dec 30 2008
parent reply K.Wilson <k.wilson nospam.nowhere.com> writes:
Daniel de Kok Wrote:

 On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:
 
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of decreasing precedence: Mac OS X 64-bit Intel Linux x86_64 Mac OS X 32-bit Intel I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all). Take care, Daniel

Just my two bits here. I would like to see Linux x86_64 support, above all else. I am the guy that added x64 support to ldc, solely because I have nothing but 64bit machines here ;) This doesn't mean that I use the 64 bit address space and all those registers, and that I max out the system every day (as another part of this thread seems to indicate is a requirement????)...it just means that dmd wouldn't work on my machines and gdc didn't support/compile some code I was using. I needed a working compiler on x64 Linux and poking inside gdc is not my favorite activity, so I updated ldc. Thanks, K.Wilson P.S. I also have access to a PPC Mac, so I guess that would be second on my list...I think Mac support in general would be nice.
Jan 04 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"K.Wilson" <k.wilson nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:gjrprj$la5$1 digitalmars.com...
 Daniel de Kok Wrote:

 On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> 
 said:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?

In order of decreasing precedence: Mac OS X 64-bit Intel Linux x86_64 Mac OS X 32-bit Intel I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all). Take care, Daniel

Just my two bits here. I would like to see Linux x86_64 support, above all else. I am the guy that added x64 support to ldc, solely because I have nothing but 64bit machines here ;) This doesn't mean that I use the 64 bit address space and all those registers, and that I max out the system every day (as another part of this thread seems to indicate is a requirement????)...it just means that dmd wouldn't work on my machines and gdc didn't support/compile some code I was using. I needed a working compiler on x64 Linux and poking inside gdc is not my favorite activity, so I updated ldc.

I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.
 Thanks,
 K.Wilson

 P.S. I also have access to a PPC Mac, so I guess that would be second on 
 my list...I think Mac support in general would be nice. 

Jan 05 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform 
 vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 
 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) 
 then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.

I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.
Jan 07 2009
next sibling parent K.Wilson <k.wilson nospam.nowhere.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform 
 vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 
 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) 
 then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.

I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.

Strange, I have tried dmd on my Ubuntu 64 box and it doesn't work because of 64bit lib incompatibilities...I guess I have something messed up on that machine for 32bit libs?!? I have since tried dmd on a Ubuntu 64 virtual machine and it does work, so my bad on that count. Thanks, K.Wilson
Jan 08 2009
prev sibling parent K.Wilson <k.wilson nospam.nowhere.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform 
 vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 
 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) 
 then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.

I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.

Strange, I have tried dmd on my Ubuntu 64 box and it doesn't work because of 64bit lib incompatibilities...I guess I have something messed up on that machine for 32bit libs?!? I have since tried dmd on a Ubuntu 64 virtual machine and it does work, so my bad on that count. Thanks, K.Wilson
Jan 08 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Olli Aalto <oaalto gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

Mac mac mac mac mac. Did I say mac already? some time in the future: 64bit win/lin jvm
Dec 31 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
 
 .net
 jvm
 mac osx 32 bit intel
 mac osx 64 bit intel
 linux 64 bit
 windows 64 bit
 freebsd 32 bit
 netbsd 32 bit
 
 other?

I'm most interested in .net and Windows 64-bit platforms, would love to see D support them (and of course refined support for multi-cpus).
Dec 31 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Rohan <rohan land.ru> writes:
Syllable - would be nice to see native port of DMD
Jan 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply suresh <sureshkrshukla gmail.com> writes:
Hi Walter,

I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++.

I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family.

In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.
AFAIK back-end support for gcc already supports - native x86 32 bit , .Net IL,
bytecode etc.

What I remember from computer language benchmarks performance of gdc was very
close to dmd.
[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all]

This is one very critical move which can make D mainstream language very soon.

Anyway, you understand these details much better than me.
Feb 27 2009
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
suresh:
 In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
 and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.

Also take a look at LDC: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and D2 versions, and the lack of support of Phobos will eventually be fixed by LDC developers, I presume). Bye, bearophile
Feb 27 2009
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:19 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:
 suresh:
 In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
 and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.

http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and D2 versions, and the lack of support of Phobos will eventually be fixed by LDC developers, I presume).

I thought I heard that LDC works on 64-bit Linux. And geez, give them a break about D2 - it's still in alpha :P

I used it for some time on 64-bit linux. I stopped maybe a month ago. LDC is very close to meeting the quality of DMD. By the end of the year, most likely, I will be using it rather than DMD as a matter of course.
Feb 27 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:01 AM, suresh <sureshkrshukla gmail.com> wrote:
 Hi Walter,

 I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++.

 I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family.

Downs has gotten GDC to work on ARM at least to an extent. He was using it to make some stuff for the Nintendo DS. I wonder how stable/complete it is.
Feb 27 2009
prev sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:19 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:
 suresh:
 In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for
development
 and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.

Also take a look at LDC: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and D2 versions, and the lack of support of Phobos will eventually be fixed by LDC developers, I presume).

I thought I heard that LDC works on 64-bit Linux. And geez, give them a break about D2 - it's still in alpha :P
Feb 27 2009