Conspiracy Theory #1

Travis Boucher boucher.travis at gmail.com
Sat Nov 21 07:26:47 PST 2009


retard wrote:
> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:03:46 -0700, Travis Boucher wrote:
> 
>> The future of D to me is very uncertain.  I see some very bright
>> possibilities in the embedded area and the web cluster area (these are
>> my 2 areas, so I can't speak on the scientific applications).  However
>> the limited targets for the official DMD, and the adoption lag in gdc
>> (and possibly ldc) are issues that need to be addressed before I can see
>> the language getting some of the real attention that it deserves.
> 
> Agreed, basically you would need to go the gdc/gcc route since e.g. arm/
> mips backends on llvm aren't as mature and clearly digitalmars only 
> targets x86.

I hope sometime after the D2 specs are finalized, and dmd2 stablizes, 
Walter decides to make the dmd backend Boost or MIT licensed (or 
similar).  Then we can all call the Digital Mars compiler 'the reference 
implementation', and standardize on GCC/LLVM.

For most applications/libraries, forking means death.  But look at the 
cases of bind (DNS), sendmail (smtp), and even Apache (and it's NCSA 
roots).  These implementations of their respective protocols are still 
the 'standard' and 'reference' implementations, they still have a huge 
installation, and are still see active development.

However, their alternatives in many cases offer better support, features 
and/or speed (not to mention security, especially in the case of bind 
and sendmail).

Of course, I am not even touching on the windows end of things, the 
weird marketing and politics involved in windows software I can't 
comment on as it is too confusing for me.  (freeware, shareware, 
crippleware, EULAs).



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list