dmd platform support - poll

Yigal Chripun yigal100 at
Sat Dec 27 15:35:09 PST 2008

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Derek Parnell"<derek at psych.ward>  wrote in message
> news:nkr1wyvyj3vv$.qr1gd1h779fx.dlg at
>> 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?
two things:
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 

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.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list