• "sami" <sami hotmail.com> Jan 26 2012
• "Trass3r" <un known.com> Jan 26 2012
• Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> Jan 26 2012
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> Jan 26 2012
• Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> Jan 26 2012
• Don Clugston <dac nospam.com> Jan 27 2012
• Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> Jan 26 2012
• "Trass3r" <un known.com> Jan 26 2012
• "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> Jan 26 2012
• xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> Jan 26 2012
• "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> Jan 26 2012
• xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> Jan 26 2012
• xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> Jan 26 2012
• Trass3r <un known.com> Jan 26 2012
• Trass3r <un known.com> Jan 26 2012
• "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Jan 26 2012

"sami" <sami hotmail.com> writes:

my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa 
versa?
what the feature of one of them over the other?
what the different between them in term of inline assembly, 
performance, platform and bugs?

"Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:

On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
 my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa 
 versa?
 what the feature of one of them over the other?
 what the different between them in term of inline assembly, 
 performance, platform and bugs?


They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the 
same.
dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and 
platform support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may 
have unique bugs in its glue code.

On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain 
is just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc 
yourself is PITA on Win though.
On Linux the difference isn't that big.

Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> writes:

actually is a d source file that does more than a simple translation ... as dmd

On 26/01/12 13:59, Trass3r wrote:
 There is also gdmd : dmd front end that use gdc

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:

On 26-01-2012 18:06, xancorreu wrote:
 Al 26/01/12 17:15, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
 On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
 my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
 versa?
 what the feature of one of them over the other?
 what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
 performance, platform and bugs?


 same.
 dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
 support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
 gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
 have unique bugs in its glue code.


 specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.


 I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not. An
 alternative is ldc, also free.


Huh? Surely you mean the DMD back end? Everything else is either GPL or 
Boost.

 On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is
 just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is
 PITA on Win though.


 *nix systems, but still painful.


 On Linux the difference isn't that big.


 D is a worthwhile language. ;-) You can then bootstrap it by compiling
 it with gdc, dmd, or whatever you wish, then recompile it with itself
 (gcc-style). All sorts of neat stuff you can do there.


 T


 and few html pages. The books are non-free and there are not worth
 tutorials. I like D but definitively it makes me back!. Compare for
 example golang and D. Both relatively new languages (D is elder) and you
 have many more docs about golang than D. You have not a bunch of docs,
 docs you get with python or perl, but it's worthy amount.


 Just my opinion,
 Xan.


- Alex

Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> writes:

Sorry I made a mistake here:
I confused gdmd with rdmd :-)



On 26/01/12 14:08, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
 actually is a d source file that does more than a simple translation ... as dmd

 On 26/01/12 13:59, Trass3r wrote:
 There is also gdmd : dmd front end that use gdc

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com> writes:

On 26/01/12 18:59, xancorreu wrote:
 Al 26/01/12 18:43, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:06:38PM +0100, xancorreu wrote:
 [...]
 I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not.




 Yes, both


I don't what that means. The DMD backend license is not compatible with 
the GPL, so it could never be bundled with a *nix distro. Otherwise, I 
don't think there are any consequences. It has nothing else in common 
with non-free products.

The complete source is on github, and you're allowed to freely download 
it, compile it, and make your own clone on github. What else would you want?

Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p rezozer.net> writes:

There is also gdmd : dmd front end that use gdc

On 26/01/12 13:34, Trass3r wrote:
 On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
 my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa versa?
 what the feature of one of them over the other?
 what the different between them in term of inline assembly, performance,
platform and bugs?


 They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the same.
 dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform support
(x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
 gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may have unique
bugs in its glue code.

 On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is just crap
and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is PITA on Win though.
 On Linux the difference isn't that big.

"Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:

 There is also gdmd : dmd front end that use gdc


options into gdc ones.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
 On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
versa?
what the feature of one of them over the other?
what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
performance, platform and bugs?


 They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the
 same.
 dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
 support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
 gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
 have unique bugs in its glue code.


gdc also inherits gcc's multiplatform support, together with platform
specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.


 On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is
 just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is
 PITA on Win though.


Building gcc in general is a pain. It's just a little less painful on
*nix systems, but still painful.


 On Linux the difference isn't that big.


Hmm, maybe somebody should write a D compiler in D. That will prove that
D is a worthwhile language. ;-) You can then bootstrap it by compiling
it with gdc, dmd, or whatever you wish, then recompile it with itself
(gcc-style). All sorts of neat stuff you can do there.


T

-- 
Prosperity breeds contempt, and poverty breeds consent. -- Suck.com

xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> writes:

Al 26/01/12 17:15, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
 On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
 my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
 versa?
 what the feature of one of them over the other?
 what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
 performance, platform and bugs?


 same.
 dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
 support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
 gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
 have unique bugs in its glue code.


 specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.


I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not. An 
alternative is ldc, also free.
 On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is
 just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is
 PITA on Win though.


 *nix systems, but still painful.


 On Linux the difference isn't that big.


 D is a worthwhile language. ;-) You can then bootstrap it by compiling
 it with gdc, dmd, or whatever you wish, then recompile it with itself
 (gcc-style). All sorts of neat stuff you can do there.


 T


and few html pages. The books are non-free and there are not worth 
tutorials. I like D but definitively it makes me back!. Compare for 
example golang and D. Both relatively new languages (D is elder) and you 
have many more docs about golang than D. You have not a bunch of docs, 
docs you get with python or perl, but it's worthy amount.


Just my opinion,
Xan.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:06:38PM +0100, xancorreu wrote:
[...]
 I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not.


You mean free as in freedom, not as in price.


 An alternative is ldc, also free.


I looked up ldc recently, and it seems that it hasn't been updated for
years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively
maintained. And from what I hear, its front end is essentially the same
as dmd.


[...]
 A painful is the lack of documentation: there is only API/Classes
 docs and few html pages. The books are non-free and there are not
 worth tutorials.


Andrei's book is worth the buy. It's not that expensive and it covers a
lot of very useful stuff.

As for docs and tutorials, why not contribute by writing more of them?


 I like D but definitively it makes me back!.
 Compare for example golang and D. Both relatively new languages (D is
 elder) and you have many more docs about golang than D. You have not a
 bunch of docs, docs you get with python or perl, but it's worthy
 amount.



It's because of the size of the community. The D community is relatively
small, but because google has such a wide exposure, golang has acquired
a large following in spite of its young age. Larger community == more
people writing tutorials, docs, howtos, etc..

So how to combat this? Write your own tutorials and docs. Contribute to
the community.


T

-- 
The fact that anyone still uses AOL shows that even the presence of
options doesn't stop some people from picking the pessimal one. - Mike
Ellis

xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> writes:

Al 26/01/12 18:43, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:06:38PM +0100, xancorreu wrote:
 [...]
 I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not.




Yes, both
 An alternative is ldc, also free.


 years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively
 maintained. And from what I hear, its front end is essentially the same
 as dmd.


I think ldc is actively and it supports D 2.0 (see 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc/wiki/BuildInstructionsPhobosDruntimeTrunk)
 [...]
 A painful is the lack of documentation: there is only API/Classes
 docs and few html pages. The books are non-free and there are not
 worth tutorials.


 lot of very useful stuff.

 As for docs and tutorials, why not contribute by writing more of them?


 I like D but definitively it makes me back!.
 Compare for example golang and D. Both relatively new languages (D is
 elder) and you have many more docs about golang than D. You have not a
 bunch of docs, docs you get with python or perl, but it's worthy
 amount.



 It's because of the size of the community. The D community is relatively
 small, but because google has such a wide exposure, golang has acquired
 a large following in spite of its young age. Larger community == more
 people writing tutorials, docs, howtos, etc..

 So how to combat this? Write your own tutorials and docs. Contribute to
 the community.


 T


The developers, the experts, they "should" write good tutorials and 
bring to the community freely (as in beer and as in freedom). Because 
with lack of ground documentation, the hypotetic learners like me will 
not learn or at least the effort to do it will be exagerated. The 
documentation I could write, the learner, is more more more painful than 
an expert could do.

Perhaps the documentation is the key that developers forget.

How many books we have of D 2.0? One.
All the documentation with API/Class exception points to this. Even web 
page (the two only freely avaliable chapters).

Think about that. Good intentions. :-)

Xan.

xancorreu <xancorreu gmail.com> writes:

Al 26/01/12 19:48, En/na Alex Rønne Petersen ha escrit:
 On 26-01-2012 18:06, xancorreu wrote:
 Al 26/01/12 17:15, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
 On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
 my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
 versa?
 what the feature of one of them over the other?
 what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
 performance, platform and bugs?


 same.
 dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
 support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
 gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
 have unique bugs in its glue code.


 specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.


 I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not. An
 alternative is ldc, also free.


 Huh? Surely you mean the DMD back end? Everything else is either GPL 
 or Boost.


Yes, sorry.

Xan.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 Building gcc in general is a pain. It's just a little less painful on
 *nix systems, but still painful.


I can't agree.
The build instructions contain everything. Has been straightforward for me  
right from the beginning.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 I looked up ldc recently, and it seems that it hasn't been updated for
 years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively
 maintained.


Please don't spread such misinformation.
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/commits/master

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Thursday, January 26, 2012 19:56:22 Trass3r wrote:
 I looked up ldc recently, and it seems that it hasn't been updated for
 years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively
 maintained.


 Please don't spread such misinformation.
 https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/commits/master


Unfortunately, with both gdc and ldc, the first hits that google gives you are 
generally to out-of-date web pages, so both projects quickly end up looking 
out-of-date and/or dead.

- Jonathan M Davis