CTFE ^^ (pow)

[Norm]

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your 
>>> company who was trialing D?
>>>
>>> Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one 
>>> saying this.
>>>
>>> Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help companies, 
>>> even flying to them on his own dime.
>>>
>>> If you want to be treated special, we need to have a reason 
>>> for you to be treated special, otherwise you're just like 
>>> everybody else complaining without giving back.
>> 
>> We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give 
>> back. This is the *entire* point.
>> 
>> D claims to be "Industry Proven and Ready" but we have to 
>> submit PRs or get special treatment from Walter to use it 
>> effectively? Sorry, but this is why many feel that D is still 
>> just a hobby project.
>> 
>> We are an organisation trying to get work done. D was a 
>> potential replacement of our existing C++/Python tool chain. 
>> Unfortunately it *requires* us to give back, which as I stated 
>> is not our business. Our business is the development of 
>> medical devices and supporting application software, not 
>> compiler or language development.
>
> You just said the magic word, medical.
>
> D was never an appropriate fit here.
>
> dmd's backend has been for thirty years (or so) been up to 
> recently licensed so that you may not use it for this purpose. 
> Nothing has changed here.

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

What has the backend license got to do with medical?

D would be a great fit for medical with its @safe, pure and GC.

Supporting application software is standard desktop development. 
Some of these applications are for production and testing and the 
rest are normal end-user Windows desktop?

We also develop mobile applications but we didn't consider D for 
that role.

Cheers,
Norm