• Mike Parker (547/547) Nov 21 The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 took
• matheus (4/5) Nov 21 April? Is this right. Shouldn't the gap between meetings and
• Serg Gini (3/9) Nov 21 Nah..
• Mike Parker (5/11) Nov 21 Yes, I'm behind, but catching up is a top priority right now.
• jmh530 (3/5) Nov 21 [snip]

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 took 
place on Friday the 4th at 15:00 UTC. It lasted about an hour and 
twenty minutes.

Our quarterly meetings are where representatives from businesses 
big and small can bring us their most pressing D issues, status 
reports on their use of D, and so on.



The following people attended the meeting:

* Mathis Beer (Funkwerk)
* Walter Bright (DLF)
* Luís Ferreira (Weka)
* Martin Kinkelin (Symmetry)
* Dennis Korpel (DLF/SARC)
* Mathias Lang (DLF/Symmetry)
* Átila Neves (DLF/Symmetry)
* Mike Parker (DLF)
* Carsten Rasmussen (Decard)
* Robert Schadek (DLF/Symmetry)
* Bastiaan Veelo (SARC)
* Ilya Yanok (Weka)




Ilya said his focus at Weka was on improving the developer 
experience. To that end, he'd realized they were spending a lot 
of compiler cycles compiling code that was then thrown away when 
linking. [He'd posted a DIP 
idea](https://forum.dlang.org/post/veqgighfeexaxrgpwnuj forum.dlang.org) for an
annotation or pragma to mark functions intended only for use at compile time.

Walter asked if his concern was long compile times, which Ilya 
affirmed. Walter then asked if they were using separate 
compilation. Ilya said that they were compiling by package during 
development but compiled everything all at once for release 
builds. They were aware that part of the problem was redoing 
static semantic analysis on templates, and compiling everything 
together helped with that. But they had found through 
benchmarking that a lot of time was spent in the back end. Luís 
noted this was specifically regarding LDC and not DMD.

Walter asked why not then use DMD for development and LDC for 
production. A lot of people did that. Luís said they needed the 
ability to define custom sections, which LDC allowed and DMD 
didn't. They also had a tracing system that heavily used LDC 
stuff. DMD would be an option if that were implemented in the its 
back end. But for a release build they took something like an 
hour.

I asked Ilya if he wanted to talk about the proposal. He said the 
idea was super simple: attach an attribute to a function or 
function template. A stupid implementation would just skip code 
generation for that function. He'd tried that out and it wasn't 
so nice, as it ended up leading to cryptic linking errors. So 
he'd gone further and implemented a simple static analysis on top 
of it, such that marked functions could only be called during 
CTFE or from other marked functions.

There were some complications in making something like `map` work 
with such functions. With a straightforward implementation, it 
wouldn't be allowed. So you'd need some sort of propagation 
through the templates to make it work with templated functions.

In the forum thread, there'd been discussion about just using 
`assert(__ctfe)`. He'd tried to explain many times that it wasn't 
possible because `__ctfe` assert was evaluated at run time and 
this was a compile-time thing. He said that, in a sense, `assert` 
could be infinitely more precise, and it could happen that at run 
time it never triggered. But at compile time, we had to 
approximate. We couldn't just simulate execution.

Átila said he preferred an `in` contract instead of an assert 
because you could see that at compile time. It was kind of part 
of the function signature.

Ilya agreed that was better in that, on the technical side, it 
was easier to get the contract than the assert because you didn't 
have to go into the body. But from its semantic meaning, 
contracts were still evaluated at run time. There were some 
examples in the discussion thread, like taking the address of a 
function with such a contract and putting it in an array, and 
then taking that value back from the array and executing it. You 
could do that inside CTFE, so it would work, but it would be 
super hard for the compiler to see that it could actually skip 
code gen for it.

Átila agreed, but said that `in(__ctfe)` was a special case. Ilya 
said you could special case it, but then you'd have a special 
kind of semantics for that specific contract. Átila argued it was 
only that one.  `__ctfe` was already special anyway. Special 
cases in general were bad, but this one might not be terrible.

Dennis noted it would be a breaking change. Ilya agreed it was 
technically a breaking change, though he thought people never 
used that kind of contract, so it wouldn't actually break 
anything. Dennis had an example in the thread of a valid program 
that would break with the change. It would be rare, but it could 
happen and was something to keep in mind.

I said that would mean we'd have to put it behind an edition, but 
wondered if we'd really need to do that with an attribute? Átila 
said if there was a chance we'd break things at compile time, 
then yes, it should be behind an edition. He proposed we look 
through GitHub to see how often that kind of code turned up.

Luís reminded us that the spec said contracts were removed in 
release builds. This would have to be an exception like 
`assert(0)`. Átila said if this idea went forward, that's what 
would happen.

Luís asked if it would be a special case for a contract with 
`__ctfe` or a contract that at compile time would get a zero 
folded variable. Átila thought it should just be `__ctfe` for 
now. He didn't think it was weird to special case it, because 
CTFE was so fundamental to the language and that variable was 
already special. Luís said he understood.

Átila said that, should this go forward, we should do the least 
amount possible to make it work. Luís was worried about breakage 
and would need to see examples to form an opinion on which 
approach was best.

Martin said that, out of curiosity, he'd just done a search for 
`in(__ctfe)` across all of GitHub and turned up four instances, 
all of them in
Átila's code in the tardy project and Symmetry's autowrap. He'd 
expected to see none at all.

I asked what the next step should be. Should Ilya move forward 
with the DIP or not? I thought we should resolve that in this 
meeting. Did it have a chance to go all the way with an 
attribute, or was it preferable to take the contract approach?

Átila said he wouldn't reject it outright.

Walter said that `assert(!__ctfe)` had been brought up in the 
forum thread, where people had said it required semantic 
analysis. He said it didn't require semantic analysis. The 
compiler could just look at the first declaration in the function 
and see if it matched `assert(!__ctfe)`. No language changes were 
required.

Átila said the contract was even easier. It didn't need to look 
at the function body. Walter said he wasn't sure how it 
interacted with contracts, but he remembered discussing the "no 
runtime thing".

Martin said if we were just talking about skipping code gen for 
some functions annotated with whatever syntax, their bodies 
needed to be analyzed anyway. If they were code gen candidates, 
they needed to be semantically analyzed in Sema3. It was later 
that code gen would be skipped. So it didn't matter if this 
feature was part of the body. The body would be analyzed first 
anyway. Suppressing code gen for an already analyzed function was 
not a blocker for having it in the body. He thought it would be a 
bit more elegant as a contract, but he didn't have a preference.

Átila thought it was good to have either way. At this point, we 
were just bikeshedding.

Ilya said the main problem with the `assert` approach wasn't 
about looking into the function bodies. The main problem was that 
existing functions that had this assert as an `in` contract. 
Skipping code gen for those would be a breaking change. Ditto for 
`in(__ctfe)`. He and Dennis had posted examples. Átila said that 
was a good point.

Martin had just seen those examples for the first time, and 
wanted to clarify that the issue here was that code that compiled 
before could have linker errors with the change. Ilya confirmed.

Átila reiterated that this was a good idea, however it was 
implemented. We shouldn't be wasting time generating functions 
that were never called at run time.

Dennis asked if the backend could just see that a function 
started with `assert(0)` and recognize that it didn't need to be 
analyzed. Walter said yes. Martin said if you were using it 
during CTFE, you'd need the analysis.

He wondered about the concern over breaking changes. It was easy 
to come up with these examples, but was this really a thing in 
real-world code? Was it one person or a thousand projects? We 
could just put it behind an edition.

He brought up a problematic case of taking the address of a 
function with `assert(__ctfe)` in it and storing it somewhere to 
call later. Ilya said another problematic case was calling such a 
function in a branch. Walter said the compiler, upon seeing the 
`if(__ctfe)` or something like it, wouldn't generate the code for 
the false branch. Ilya said it wouldn't always be that simple. It 
could be any condition.

Walter said the compiler was pretty good at eliminating code that 
was clearly never going to be executed. You could have a complex 
conditional and it would not generate code for the CTFE-only 
branch. Ilya said that was true, some dead code elimination would 
kick in and delete some code, but that was already happening in 
the back end. After you spent some cycles in the glue code and 
then some other back-end code... he would like to avoid that.

Another thing was that it could not delete the unused code in 
100% of cases. It could be super complicated and potentially 
depend on something at run time. There would always be a 
situation where a program could get an input that would never 
trigger a function to be executed outside of CTFE, but the 
compiler wouldn't be able to see it.

Walter said if you put an `assert(__ctfe)` in there, no matter 
where you put it or how complicated it was, the compiler was 
going to delete the code that followed it during code gen. If 
anyone could find a case where that wasn't true, he'd love to see 
it.

Mathis Beer said if it was really just going to be putting 
`assert(__ctfe)` at the start of a function, then maybe replace 
it with a stub function. He was unaware of any case offhand where 
that shouldn't work.

Martin said we wouldn't need to change anything at all, based on 
what Walter had just said. So if there was an `assert(__ctfe)` at 
the start of the function, the whole function body would be 
optimized out to an `assert(0)` at run time.

Walter suggested trying it out: write some functions, put 
`assert(__ctfe)` at the start, and check the generated code. 
Everything that was guarded with the assert should disappear.

Luís said the symbol would still be generated. Dennis noted that 
the issue was about compile times in LDC's back end.

Walter said the compiler would figure it out early on. It does 
trivial optimizations, and one of those was pruning out 
everything preceded by `if(0)`. It just got deleted. Átila asked 
if that was in the DMD backend. Walter said it was. Átila replied 
that LLVM probably didn't do that, hence the issue.

Mathis said that LLVM did that, but there was a bunch of stuff 
that happened before that point where it had to generate the 
intermediate representation before it noticed that kind of thing.

Walter said DMD would generate the intermediate code, but then it 
would delete it.

Átila thought the contract still sounded like the easiest thing 
since it didn't require a language change. And since his code was 
the only thing that turned up on GitHub already using it, there 
would be almost no breakage. Mathis warned about underestimating 
the amount of private code out there that might break. Even then, 
Átila thought the amount of private code using it would still be 
small given how it didn't show up on GitHub.

I asked Ilya if he was okay with the contract approach. He said 
he was. The purist in him said contracts should be run time and 
attributes compile time, and so this should be an attribute. But 
from an implementation perspective, there was no difference.

Átila noted that contracts were available at compile time anyway.

Luís thought as long as it worked for Weka's use case, then it 
would be fine.

I told Ilya he was free to post an updated DIP in the Development 
forum at any time.


Luís pointed us at [a GC bug Ilya had 
reported](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/issues/20917). They used a 
lot of `__traits(compiles)` in their code and had found that 
` nogc` analysis wasn't doing well with it. He also brought up 
[an older issue](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/issues/17584) that 
he thought might be a trivial fix. There were other issues he 
needed to track down and would bring to us later.

__UPDATE__: The first issue has since been fixed.



There was a brief side discussion prompted by Maritin asking if 
Weka had done any testing with LDC's "link once template switch". 
  Weka were still on an older version of LDC, but were slowly 
upgrading their code base to work with newer versions.

Before moving on, I announced that we should thank Weka for their 
support. They had approved funding for DConf and a new paid 
staffer. Nicholas Wilson would fill the Pull Request & Issue 
Manager role that Razvan vacated when we made him Project 
Coordinator, and I would soon announce it publicly.



Bastiaan reminded us that SARC had faced difficulties getting the 
32-bit performance of their D port on par with their old code, 
and they'd been unable to use LDC on 32-bit Windows. They'd 
intended to move it all over to 64-bit upon finishing the D port.

They'd encountered a numerical bug at one point in DMD-optimized 
code. That had since been fixed, but because they'd been under 
quite a bit of stress to get the port over the finish line, they 
decided they couldn't spend too much time validating the 
numerical results in 32-bits, so they decided to go ahead and 
move to 64-bits in parallel with porting to D.

The 64-bit port was complete and they were now using 64-bit LDC. 
They were testing it alongside the 32-bit code. They wanted to 
get rid of the 32-bit stuff completely at some point, but some 
systems were still running 32-bit Windows. They were using 
non-optimized builds for that.

That process had gone quicker than he'd expected. Unfortunately, 
he was seeing some heavier use of the heap in D compered to the 
original Pascal. That was causing some problems in the 32-bit 
builds sometimes.

Walter asked why they were still using 32-bit systems. Bastiaan 
said there were some very old systems onboard some ships that 
still used a 32-bit OS.

Walter said he wasn't working on 32-bit code gen anymore. 
Bastiaan understood that. The problem was just that their code 
wasn't 64-bit compatible because they were doing a lot of tricks 
with pointer to integer conversions. It was really messy old 
Pascal code that couldn't do pointer arithmetic. So they had to 
covert to integers for that. Pascal didn't know anything about 
`size_t`, so they had to introduce that and change it in the 
right spots. The problem wasn't about porting D from 32- to 
64-bits, it was about interfacing with the parts of their
code that were still in Pascal.

He said one interesting case was that Pascal worked with a 
stack-based string. You used a very large string on the stack, 
did your manipulation, and it was gone on function exit. In the D 
port, that became a heap allocation. He was looking to eliminate 
some of that and was surprised to learn that `Appender` was 
incapable of using a stack array.

Luckily, he found a package that Robert maintained that did what 
he wanted, but he was still surprised. He was seeing a factor of 
about 1.5 increase in memory usage in 32-bits. He was trying to 
hunt that down. He believed there was some fragmentation going 
on, too.

He said they were all in on the testing phase now, so they were 
getting closer and closer to the end.

I said it had been a long journey and I was happy to hear it was 
almost over. Bastiaan said everyone was looking forward to it. 
One of his colleagues was already using D for a new module, and 
they had some other small modules up as well. He said Dennis was 
working on the base of an output feature based on a tree. That 
was also in D.

Martin asked if the Pascal code was using a GC. He was wondering 
if the memory usage was a GC vs. GC comparison. Bastiaan said no. 
He wondered if the D GC was keeping pointers alive for too long.

Martin said it could. When it decided there was no need to run, 
then it wouldn't. They'd had problems like that in the past at 
Symmetry. The new GC that was coming was going to make things 
better in every way. They'd seen a reduction of about 60% or so 
in the average case, which was quite good. He asked if Bastiaan 
had experimented with the precise GC on 32-bit DMD to prevent 
false pointers from keeping stuff alive.

Bastiaan said yes, they were using the precise GC.

I couldn't recall if the new GC supported 32-bit. Átila said it 
did not. It was hiding information in the the extra bits afforded 
by 64-bit.

Luís thought precise was also not a thing under the new GC. 
Bastiaan thought that was really only useful for 32-bits. Martin 
said it was also a speed issue and talked a bit about the 
implementation.



Mathis said the only thing new he had to report was that Funkwerk 
had tried the new GC. He was so hyped about it. He genuinely 
believed that if D had had that GC 20 years ago, it would be in a 
different place today. It was so good. He expected it was going 
to cut their memory usage in half across the board.

The main reason was that they were heavily pushing toward having 
a mutation-free design with immutable data structures and 
algorithms. That put an unavoidable load on the GC that they were 
always trying to manage. The'd have to manage it a lot less with 
the new GC, and that was awesome.

Luís was very interested in checking it out, but being on a 
custom runtime and an older LDC version might make it difficult. 
Mathis said it would be very hard not to notice an improvement 
with it. And it was being actively ported to DMD.



Carsten said Decard were still working on their network. They 
were transpiling WASM into BetterC and it worked okay. They were 
testing it at the moment, but it was working fine for them.



Dennis had one minor issue at SARC to tell us about. They were 
supporting both 32- and 64-bit and were using a binary 
serialization package. The issue was that when you had a struct 
with `size_t`, it would be incompatible. The 32-bit version saw a 
`uint` and the 64-bit version saw a `ulong`. So on 32-bit, they 
were serializing it as 64-bits.

He wondered if anyone had any other ideas for how to deal with 
`size_t` and introspection.

Mathias Lang suggested not using `size_t`. Dennis said that would 
then require casts when indexing an array with `ulong` or 
converting an array size to `uint`. The code would be littered 
with casts every time an array index was used or stored.

Mathias suggested if it was a network protocol, they'd probably 
need a fixed size anyway, so `uint` or `ulong`. Dennis said it 
wasn't a network protocol. It was just serializing to disk and 
reading it back.

Carsten said he'd had a similar problem trying to compile to a 
16-bit AVR. Doing a `foreach` on an array, things like that, 
would break when you tried to compile it. You couldn't use arrays 
in BetterC on 16-bit systems. He thought it was a fixable 
problem, but he didn't look into it.

Dennis said D didn't officially support anything less than 
32-bits, so Carsten would have to work around it some other way.  
Carsten said he accepted that, but everything else actually 
worked in BetterC as long as you didn't use arrays. But that was 
the loss of a big advantage over C.

Walter said it would be nice if Carsten could write something up 
about how to use 16-bit DMD. That would be fun. Carsten said he'd 
think about writing up what he'd done trying to compile for the 
Arduino.

I asked if anyone had any other advice for Dennis. Walter 
suggested doing something like this:

```d
struct size_t2 { size_t s; alias this = s; }
```

Dennis said it wasn't very usable. You couldn't assign an integer 
to it:

```d
size_t2 i = 0;
Error: cannot implicitly convert expression `0` of type `int` to 
`size_t2`
```

Átila suggested adding a constructor, then it could be `i = 
size_t2(0)`.

Dennis said the whole point was to avoid making things difficult 
for their inexperienced D colleagues. The programmers at SARC 
were used to Pascal. If they had to know all of these `alias 
this` quirks, then he'd rather just not use it.

Walter didn't think there was a magic solution to this. Dennis 
said that was why their current solution was just to add an 
attribute to `size_t` fields.



Martin said they had tested 2.111 at Symmetry. One blocker that 
they'd hit for one of their main projects was a compiler bug 
related to semantic analysis order that may have been there for 
ages. Iain hadn't been able to confirm if it was a regression. So 
probably very old compiler versions would also fail to compile 
it. He'd [reported an issue for 
it](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/issues/21137).

Martin had run Dustmite on it and fixed the test. Unfortunately, 
the bug appeared in real world code and that wasn't fixed. So 
he'd had to do another Dustmite reduction.

Nothing had changed in their code. It appeared to be related to a 
change in Phobos to make `Appender` more efficient that ended up 
uncovering an existing compiler bug with semantic analysis 
ordering.

They'd had multiple problems where switching the order of modules 
on the command line broke things. He thought one of the Weka 
issues Luís reported, which was all about inconsistent attribute 
inference, might be related in some way.

You were only going to see issues like this on bigger projects. 
Normal people with smaller projects would probably never see 
this. But as a hardcore D programmer with a large code base, this 
was the kind of bug you didn't want to see. They were difficult 
to track down. He'd probably have to hack the compiler with some 
print statements just to figure out the different semantic 
analysis ordering, what to change or what the correct order was 
for it to work and how he could get there. Right now he had no 
idea.

That seemed to be the only problem so far.

I noted that this kind of issue with semantic analysis order had 
been with us a long time. This wasn't the first time it had come 
up. I asked how we could go about fixing it once and for all. Was 
there a project we could set someone up to investigate? Contract 
work perhaps? Did we need to have Walter spend a month digging 
into it?

Martin said he honestly didn't know. It could be a tiny little 
trivial fix, like a semantic call missing somewhere, or a little 
check missing somewhere. He thought what would really help would 
be some kind of logging framework where we could figure out the 
semantic passes, how they were done and in which order they were 
done. Something like LDC had for code gen, which was very helpful 
in some cases when solving LDC code gen problems. It was easily 
thousands and thousands of lines with all the information you 
needed.

Maybe LDC's `-ftime-trace` would be enough if he set the 
granularity to zero to ensure that everything was printed. But 
for hard bugs like this, having some form of extra output to 
track the problem down should be the first step. Ideally, it 
shouldn't hurt the runtime performance of a normal DMD build 
where you weren't interested in those features. And ideally you 
wouldn't need a separate compiler build just for that. You'd opt 
in and pay the runtime price just for that extra output.

Walter said that the general problem with attribute inference was 
that if the graph had cycles in it, then it depended on which 
cycle was done first. It shouldn't be a problem as long as it was 
a tree structure, but as soon as you started having cycles, we 
didn't really have a general solution.

Generally in attribute inference and data flow analysis, that 
problem was solved using data flow equations. But the compiler 
didn't do any data flow equations for inference. Trying to solve 
it without some sort of data flow equations was going to be like 
stepping on a ripple in a carpet. All it did was pop up somewhere 
else. So until someone came up with an algorithm for dealing with 
cycles in the flow graph, he didn't think we could solve this 
problem.

It was the same problem with forward references. For example, 
take a struct that has a `static if` that adds another field. If 
the `static if` was conditioned on the size of the struct, then 
it was compiling in a field that changed the size of the struct 
and you ended up with this insoluble chicken or egg problem. He 
thought the problem with `static if` was never resolved, and the 
inference engine there had the same problem.

What you had to do was to sit down with a pencil and a piece of 
paper and ask, how can I figure this out with just some simple 
examples of inference? He thought Dennis had done some work on 
that earlier with the attribute inference. Maybe we had the 
defaults set up wrong if there was a cycle in it.

Mathias didn't think it was a general solution, but it seemed at 
the moment that attribute inference was pessimistic rather than 
optimistic. So when we couldn't infer something was safe, it was 
by definition unsafe. If we could take the opposite approach 
where we opted out of safety and assumed that safe by default, he 
thought that would solve some of the problems we were having.

That was the approach he wanted to use with recursion, because we 
also had this problem with auto functions. When they recursed, 
you didn't have any attributes on them.

Regardless, Walter didn't think the problem could be solved by 
printing out thousands of lines of which order it tried to infer 
things.

Martin said the problem in his test case wasn't about inference. 
He'd only brought it up because that was the issue Luís had 
mentioned, and he thought it might be related. In fixing the 
initial issue in three test cases, all three were happy. But the 
runtime code wasn't. He kept getting errors about ` safe` 
inference.

He said the whole semantic thing was so brittle. He didn't think 
in Symmetry's specific case it was about data flow analysis, but 
something to do with semantic analysis order. You could compile 
`b.d`, but you couldn't compile a module that imported that 
module. That was just ridiculous. We needed to be able to fix 
this.

Walter asked some questions about the details of the issue, which 
Martin answered.

Dennis said he'd tackled this before, and again recently with the 
2.111.0 release. And every time he got into the fundamental 
problem that DMD did semantic analysis by recursively calling 
functions that made specific assumptions, such as that you 
started analyzing at the end of the function, you finished that 
symbol, and it couldn't be interrupted. If you recursively 
entered yourself again, it was cyclic and it would give up.

He'd heard that Timon used some kind of scheduler in his front 
end that allowed you to interrupt semantic analysis, continue 
somewhere else, and then come back. That was a fundamental 
architecture thing. Given the size of DMD, changing the way 
semantic analysis was initiated and processed would be a huge 
undertaking. It would require some serious design work and 
restarting from the ground up. That was why it was so hard. He'd 
been looking for an easier way out but had come up with nothing 
so far.

Martin fully agreed. He recalled that Amaury had given a 
lightning talk about his SDC, Snazzy D Compiler, at a past DConf, 
and had mentioned that he was also using some kind of fiber 
structure for semantic analysis. Whenever he reached a point 
where he couldn't progress any further, he just yielded and let 
another thing be analyzed so that at some point he could 
hopefully get to a place where everything could be analyzed, or 
at least to a more deterministic state than we currently had.



Walter said that, as he'd announced in the forums, the first 
major test file for AArch64 actually compiled and ran now. He 
said he must have fixed 100 bugs in getting that test file to 
compile. He was pretty happy about it. It was good progress.

The ARM code generator was making progress, though it was 
frustratingly slow. He'd had a lot of problems like generating 
code with the operands reversed and things like that. He was 
knocking these things down one by one and it had started working. 
It was still a long way from being a functional compiler, but it 
was working.

Martin congratulated him. Upon seeing Walter's announcement, he'd 
updated his PR for doing the first ARM64 experiments via GitHub 
actions on the macOS ARM64 runners. It didn't work there for now. 
He was hoping that just doing a "hello world" with the `puts` 
function from C would work, but it didn't. It would be great if 
Walter could get it working on macOS and not just on Linux.

Walter said he'd have to buy a Mac to test it, but the Pi was a 
nice little machine. It was easy to use. What he was doing right 
now was the exact same thing he'd have to do get the Mac version 
to work, so he wasn't worried about it yet.

He said he'd love to get the ARM code generation added to the 
tester. Martin said the reason he'd chose the macOS ARM64 test 
runners for the first experiments was that macOS came with a 
built-in x86 emulator. So we could generate a native x86 DMD and 
have it produce ARM64 code, then run that code natively on that 
machine. This was something we couldn't do on Linux.

Walter said that was a very good point he hadn't thought of. It 
would make development faster if he could do it all on one 
machine. Right now he was compiling it on Linux then ssh'ing over 
to the ARM to link and run it.

(__UPDATE__: He has since picked up a new Mac Mini.)



Our next meeting was a monthly meeting that took place the 
following Friday, April 11th. The next quarterly meeting was on 
July 4th.

If you are running or working for a business using D, large or 
small, and would like to join our quarterly meetings periodically 
or regularly to share your problems or experiences, please let me 
know.

matheus <matheus gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 09:33:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 ...

April? Is this right. Shouldn't the gap between meetings and 
publishing it be closing down?

Matheus.

Serg Gini <kornburn yandex.ru> writes:

On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 10:52:46 UTC, matheus wrote:
 On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 09:33:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 
 ...

 April? Is this right. Shouldn't the gap between meetings and 
 publishing it be closing down?

 Matheus.

Nah..
Its for historical reasons, not for any management reaction.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 10:52:46 UTC, matheus wrote:
 On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 09:33:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 
 ...

 April? Is this right. Shouldn't the gap between meetings and 
 publishing it be closing down?

 Matheus.

Yes, I'm behind, but catching up is a top priority right now. 
I've got everything through June drafted and will be posting them 
over the next few days. I'll start on the rest next week. I'll 
have the gap back to normal by the end of December.

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 21 November 2025 at 09:33:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The D Language Foundation's quarterly meeting for April 2025 
 took place on Friday the 4th at 15:00 UTC.

[snip]

Thanks!