Move VisualD to github/d-programming-language ?

[PauloPinto]

On Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 06:58:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:57:59 +0200
> "PauloPinto" <pjmlp at progtools.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 21:25:41 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>> > On 9/9/2013 11:35 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> >> C++11 has revitalized C++ in ways that are only just 
>> >> showing themselves.
>> >
>> > That's true.
>> >
>> >> This is a threat to D gaining traction.
>> >
>> > I'm less sure about that. I think it presents an opportunity 
>> > for us. Driving the C++ resurgence is:
>> >
>> > 1. demand for high performance computing
>> >
>> > 2. turning back towards native languages
>> >
>> > 3. recognition of the value of functional-style programming 
>> > techniques
>> >
>> > 4. recognition of the value of safety, encapsulation, etc.
>> 
>> Your 1-4 points are already covered by existing languages for 
>> traditional line of business applications, specially given the 
>> fact that even current VM based languages have native 
>> compilers available.
>> 
>> Putted another way, how well do the 1 - 4 bullet points stand 
>> against Java/C#/Scala/Clojure native compilers ?
>> 
>
> Points #1 and #2 (performance computing and the draw towards 
> native
> languages) are *both* about these two things:
>
> A. Lack of the VM "middleman" sucking up resources.
>
> B. Low-level capabilities.
>
> The native compilers for VM languages (With the possible 
> exception of
> C#) can only address point "A" at best. And even C# is a bit 
> awkward
> at point "B".
>
> Giving a VM language a native compiler is only going half-way. 
> The
> language itself is geared towards, and therefore limited by, 
> the need
> to be runnable in a VM. That places inherent limitations on the
> potential benefits of native compilation. So while it's 
> technically
> native-compiled, it's just bolted-on as an afterthought.
>
> Just because I add a turbocharger to a sedan doesn't mean it's
> comparable to a McLaren or a Bugatti.

I don't get the point, what there is VM like when I compile Java, 
Scala, F#, C# native code?

How it is different from compiling Apple/Object/Turbo/Think 
Pascal, Delphi, Modula-2, Modula-3, Ada, OCaml, Oberon, Haskell, 
D, Go, Rust to native code?

There is no VM about it, other than implementation details.

Is the lack of access to processor resources what makes some of 
them VM languages?

Then even ANSI C is a VM language, given that what gives the 
language lower hardware access capabilities are all language 
extensions.

--
Paulo