dmd platform support - poll

[Yigal Chripun]

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Yigal,
>
>> John Reimer Wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Tim,
>>>
>>>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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# ?
>>>>>
>>>> Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and
>>>> probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
>>>> counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally,
>>>> depending on what version was supported, it might enable you to
>>>> write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run
>>>> cross-functionally in a web browser.
>>>>
>>>> TK
>>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
>>> someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall, such
>>> initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
>>> success). For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
>>> my personal biases. Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
>>> benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
>>> people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
>>> themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
>>> the limelight in some future endeavor.
>>>
>>> D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer,
>>> and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.
>>> Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D
>>> is better because it's a compiled language". It may be important to
>>> keep the vision a little more open to other technologies (like VM's
>>> and such) especially as optimizations improve in these areas.
>>> Otherwise, D will be at risk of loosing it's general purpose
>>> nature... and being permanently fixated as a niche language. Porting
>>> to .NET, therefore, becomes a clever way of "proving" D's viability
>>> on other technology platfroms.
>>>
>>> I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
>>> competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
>>> would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world. Microsoft may
>>> even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even more
>>> diverse audience to the platform, people who would have otherwise
>>> avoided it. You never know. ;)
>>>
>>> That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
>>> with .NET and Mono.
>>>
>>> -JJR
>>>
>> You make a valid point. Attracting new developers to D by supporting
>> more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.
>>
>> however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
>> limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
>> short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port. I
>> can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
>> enough to a D.net.
>>
>> On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to C++
>> after using D.
>>
>> so answering Walter's original question:
>>
>> for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support which
>> is a HIGH priority.
>>
>
>
> Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to prioritizing
> which platform most needs to be worked on. That's why the completion of
> .NET support would probably have to be done by another... which may be
> the case already.
>
> -JJR
>
>
>
also, while I agree with having a D.net to get more exposure for D and 
attracting new developers, I personally wouldn't use it and I doubt any 
other existing D developers would use it. There's also another concern 
about such a port - the libraries. The phobos/Tango split hurt D enough 
and adding the .net libs (or the JVM ones) to the mix will make this 
issue even worse.