How is the D programming language financed?

[Caligo]

You got me excited, so I decided to give GDC another try.  I cloned the
repo, and using GCC 4.4.5, it compiled without errors.
I started following the examples in TDPL, but the Stat program on page 22
gives the following errors:

t1.d:33: Error: void has no value
t1.d:33: Error: incompatible types for ((readf(" %s ",& x)) == (1)): 'void'
and 'int'

is there a typo in the code, or is this some kind of bug in GDC?

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:

> On Thursday 23 December 2010 12:43:11 Thomas Mader wrote:
> > Am 2010-12-23 21:01, schrieb spir:
> > > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:41:06 +0100
> > >
> > > Thomas Mader<thomas.mader at gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> I think it's very important for D to step into the corporate world to
> > >> get more stability, a bigger community and therefore a stronger
> > >> toolchain. For this to happen companies need trust in the future of
> the
> > >> project and the future are the people and the infrastructure behind D.
> > >
> > > This is true, but having important corporate investment would also
> > > strongly freeze the language in a premature state. It's too early (for
> > > D2).
> > >
> > > Denis
> > > -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> > > vit esse estrany ☣
> > >
> > > spir.wikidot.com
> >
> > I agree but I must confess that I'm confused about the state of D2.
> > It's said that for new projects someone should use D2 but I often
> > recognize that it is not considered ready/finished yet. On the other
> > hand I also read somewhere that with the release of the book "The D
> > programming language" D2 is finalized?
> >
> > Can somebody please enlighten me on this?
>
> With the release of TDPL, the D spec is no longer undergoing massive
> changes
> with each release. It is mostly finalized. However, there have been some
> issues
> that have come up or which were not 100% sorted out prior to TDPL being
> released, so some changes to the spec may be made. They will, however, only
> be
> made as necessary, and there shouldn't be very many of them. Also, they'd
> mostly
> deal with fancier features such as inout or alias this.
>
> That being said, regardless of the state of the spec, there's the state of
> the
> compiler and the standard libraries. The compiler continues to progress,
> but it
> has plenty of bugs in it still, and it has yet to implement everything in
> TDPL
> (e.g. you can currently only have one alias this per class or struct
> instead of
> multiple like TDPL says), though it has implemented almost all of it. The
> compiler is stable enough that you should be able to write code in it -
> even for
> larger projects - just fine. But you will run into bugs. So, if you want
> rock-
> solid stability, then it's not up-to-snuff yet. But it works quite well
> overall,
> and many consider the benefits to far outweigh the problems. And the
> compiler
> continues to improve with each release, so the number of problems is
> diminishing.
>
> Phobos, however, continues to be in flux and is definitely not finalized.
> Much of
> it is pretty fixed and won't be undergoing major changes, but other parts
> will
> continue to change as development continues. Some modules will be removed
> (though not many) and others will be added. The release of TDPL did not
> indicate
> the finalization of Phobos at all. Phobos is very much still a work in
> progress.
> So, while you can mostly rely on it not changing enough to force you to
> change
> code with a new compiler release, it definitely does happen at least some
> of the
> time.
>
> So, D2 is definitely ready for use, but it's still rough around the edges.
> Whether it's appropriate or not far a particular project likely depends on
> how
> mission critical the project is.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101223/195b5f3f/attachment-0001.html>