why and how D can solve the next software crisis (was Re: Negative)

[Kevin Bealer]

In article <dua2qh$ong$1 at digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>
>Kevin Bealer wrote:
>
>>>I just don't see why GDC would have to be bundled with the rest of
>>>the GNU Compiler Collection in order for it to be used everywhere ?
>[...]
>> There is no technical reason.  But go to your boss and tell him you want to use
>> a new language.  He'll be sceptical...  Now tell him you need to build your own
>> patched version GCC to get a compiler for it...
>
>But one can still build binary packages for it (GDC), without it first 
>being a FSF project ? The only caveat being that if your system compiler 
>is too far away from what GDC works with, you'll need *another* GCC too.
>(which could still be offered as an alternative installation, though...)

Like I said .. no *technical* reason, per se -- you could do this.  But asking
your boss to approve a toolchain that you patch together yourself, is going to
be like telling him that he doesn't need to *buy* a car, he can just go to the
junkyard and get a nearly complete one running.  He could, but he won't.

If your boss does programming or you have a lot of autonomy, you may have a
little flexibility here.  But it will never make it in a "Java shop" programming
environment if you have to spend several hours fixing rejected patches to GCC
every time the next revision of GDC or GCC is desired.

It doesn't have to be part of the GCC found on GNU's FTP site, but you need to
at least be able to install the compiler and libphobos from "RPMs" or build them
from one or two tar files.

>I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. Just wonder why it has to be.
>I'd worry more about the language spec not being open, or even finished.
>
>[...]
>> It may never have bytecode, but users don't actually care about that if
>> compile/link is fast -- which seems to be true for dmd but not necessarily gdc.
>> The dmd compile feels faster than just starting the Java interpreter.  I haven't
>> benchmarked it though.
>
>Part of this speed comes from optlink, I think ? (when it doesn't crash)
>At least I've found the GCC linking to be slower, doubly so for C++...
>
>--anders

I don't know - I usually work in Linux, and there it looks like dmd uses gcc to
do the link. There is an option that lets you see the commands its running.

Kevin