Conspiracy Theory #1

[Don]

Travis Boucher wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:03:46 -0700, Travis Boucher wrote:
>>
>>> The future of D to me is very uncertain.  I see some very bright
>>> possibilities in the embedded area and the web cluster area (these are
>>> my 2 areas, so I can't speak on the scientific applications).  However
>>> the limited targets for the official DMD, and the adoption lag in gdc
>>> (and possibly ldc) are issues that need to be addressed before I can see
>>> the language getting some of the real attention that it deserves.
>>
>> Agreed, basically you would need to go the gdc/gcc route since e.g. arm/
>> mips backends on llvm aren't as mature and clearly digitalmars only 
>> targets x86.
> 
> I hope sometime after the D2 specs are finalized, and dmd2 stablizes, 
> Walter decides to make the dmd backend Boost or MIT licensed (or 
> similar).

AFAIK, he can't. He doesn't own exclusive rights to it. The statement 
that it's not guaranteed to work after Y2K is a Symantec requirement, it 
definitely doesn't come from Walter!

>  Then we can all call the Digital Mars compiler 'the reference 
> implementation', and standardize on GCC/LLVM.
> 
> For most applications/libraries, forking means death.  But look at the 
> cases of bind (DNS), sendmail (smtp), and even Apache (and it's NCSA 
> roots).  These implementations of their respective protocols are still 
> the 'standard' and 'reference' implementations, they still have a huge 
> installation, and are still see active development.
> 
> However, their alternatives in many cases offer better support, features 
> and/or speed (not to mention security, especially in the case of bind 
> and sendmail).
> 
> Of course, I am not even touching on the windows end of things, the 
> weird marketing and politics involved in windows software I can't 
> comment on as it is too confusing for me.  (freeware, shareware, 
> crippleware, EULAs).