dmd platform support - poll

John Reimer terminal.node at
Sat Dec 27 16:10:00 PST 2008

Hello Yigal,

> 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
>>> 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 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.

Two things I question in your post:

(1) The assumption that existing D developers won't use it.

(2) The assumption that the D port will only use .net libs.

I don't think we have enough information yet on either point.  Perhaps you 
know more than I do. :)


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list