Current RDMD, please?

[Walter Bright]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> But he's a Mac user! :p
>>
> 
> Heh, that was exactly my thought ;)  I'm not a mac user (nearly-immediate 
> obsolescence is one of the reasons I left the Mac world after giving OSX a 
> serious try for a couple years). My primary OS is ten years old (unless you 
> count service packs), and I'm perfectly happy with it (well, much more happy 
> than I would be with the newer versions of it, like Win7 - I swear, MS's 
> devs are getting to be like Mozilla's). 

I'm using a 10 year old Windows XP version, but the difference between the Mac 
world and the Windows world is Microsoft cares about legacy compatibility, and 
my experience with Mac OS X 10.4 .. 10.6 is that Apple goes out of their way to 
make it difficult to build backwards compatible binaries.

Take a look at the dmd makefiles for OS X. Worse, Apple's documentation on how 
to do this is contradictory and spread out over obscure web pages, so there's a 
fair amount of trial and error to get it set up right. (If Apple cared about 
this, there'd be nothing more than a switch to g++ along the lines of -osx=10.4 
and it'll do whatever is necessary to build a backward compatible binary.)

On the other hand, OS X upgrades tend to be cheap ($25) while Windows upgrades 
tend to be expensive (hundreds of $).