Had another 48hr game jam this weekend...

Ramon spam at thanks.no
Tue Sep 3 14:26:45 PDT 2013


On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:21:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 21:30, Ramon <spam at thanks.no> wrote:
>> Someone wrote sth along the line of "How egotistical! Some want
>> this and want that. D doesn't get better or more popular by
>> wanting ever more things".
>>
>> I'll very soon begin to work on a project. Originally it was
>> planned to it in Ada. Relevant feature sets are roughly equal
>> with D offering a little more (like comfortable unittests) and
>> Ada being well proven.
>>
>> I *want* to go D. And I would, of course, gladly tell everyone
>> who doesn't run away fast enough that our application is
>> developed in D.(The application will quite probably have a 
>> good,
>> even international visibility but by no means be major or 
>> widely
>> known. The major (and very well useable, not "crippled") part 
>> of
>> it will be free, btw.)
>>
>> In other words: One can contribute also by using (and talking
>> about) D - not only by defending it teeth and claws or by 
>> writing
>> code for or around D itself.
>>
>> Here is my current resumee:
>>
>> - dmd not debuggable -> not an acceptable solution, no matter 
>> how
>> fast it compiles.
>> - gdc possibly still buggy (Disclaimer: Probably it was just 
>> bad
>> luck that I fell over a bug (not even an important one) and am 
>> a
>> little wary now - No offense intended. I'm immensely grateful
>> that with gdc there is an alternative and, even better, GDB
>> *works* with gdc - hurray!!)
>
> The current development of gdc passes 100% unittests and 
> testsuite, so
> that gives me confidence to say that codegen bugs are very 
> unlikely to
> be found in gdc.
>
>
>> - gdc (2): I have to either use an old version (4.63) or build 
>> it
>> myself along with gcc, which is a major hurdle
>
> That is an old version.  As I dropped gcc-4.6 support in 
> mainline
> development back in April 2012.
>
>> - Can I trust the GDC guys, are they professionals? My 
>> impression
>> so far: Yes. That's important to me because GDC clearly is the
>> compiler I'd go with.
>
> You can trust me. :o)
>
>> - Will they provide at least GDC 4-7 binaries (they did for GDC
>> 4-6 (debian)) - dunno. Would be a very big Plus.
>
> gdc-4.7 was skipped because of lack of time I could dedicate.  
> This
> time around have collaborated with doko (gcc maintainer for
> debian/ubuntu) and gdc 4.8 is available in debian unstable.  It 
> is
> recent enough using 2.062 front-end.
>
>> In summary, my resumee is quite positive (if with quite some
>> bumps) but *THE* go or break issue is debugging with dmd and 
>> GDC
>> being reliable. For the former I don't hold my breath, for the
>> latter I'm quite positively looking ahead.
>>
>
> Find a bug in gdc -> report it.  Otherwise saying it is 
> unreliable
> with no basis is pretty useless to me  (I use it day in day out
> without problems).

Iain, you made my day. Thanks so much!

I'm really, seriously. honestly grateful for what you did/are 
doing. In my case you are the one who put the D issue from 
"rather not *sigh" to "go ahead" ;)


Now, if you will excuse me, I'll hurry to debian unstable *g

A+ -R


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list