[GSoC] Trying to find a good topic

[Dan Printzell]

On Friday, 22 March 2019 at 02:03:05 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
> Hi Dan,

Hey Mike,
Sorry about the late response, I had to finish a school assignment
and I wanted to really go through everything you linked.

> I've been a fan of your work, benefit greatly from your Arch 
> Linux contributions, and admire what you've accomplished so 
> far.  (￣^￣)ゞ  <-- That's supposed to be a salute.

Thanks :)

> # Suggestion 1 - Replace Runtime Hooks with Templates
This is something I would like to do. As this would help with both
writing a new bare metal runtime and it could help the current
druntime. I can see that this idea would probably be the easiest 
to
plan for as you could plan for it to be like X amount of runtime
symbols per GSoC milestone, or something simular to this.

This could be better than writing a new bare metal runtime as it 
would
decrease the amount of code needed to get something to at least
compile. I still have to think about if there is a smart way to 
allow
"druntime-lite" to be used as a foundation for druntime. Because 
if
the new runtime would only be a separate runtime it could become a
annoyance if you need to update two runtimes for each runtime 
change.

> # Suggestion 2 - Create a No-dependency D Library

One question that need to be decided for this type of library 
would be
where should it live inside the D ecosystem, and would this mean 
that
the algorithm would live in two places, one copy inside phobos 
and one
copy inside this library.

It would be nice to try and design a module runtime, but the 
question
is how this could be limited into something that I could do in 
about 3
months, with clearly defined milestones.

> # Suggestion 3 - Port the Entire Runtime to [...]

Yes I agree, this would require both suggestions or at least
suggestion 2. The reason why I have not ported druntime to 
PowerNex
yet is because I do not want to sit and add tons of stub & wrapper
functions to get it to link.

This would be a future goal and not a GSoC goal.

> # Suggestion 4 - Replace Software Building Blocks with

I guess I'm not like most (after all I'm writing my own OS from
scratch :P), because I see the value of having D implementation 
of all
these functions. Basically all bare metal code require these 
function
in one way or another. I would say that these are a requirement 
for a
bare metal runtime.

>

I've started to structure everything in my proposal draft to try 
and
get a better more clear ideas of all the ideas that have been
discussed so far. From one of your links I found this post[1] 
chain
which I felt gave a lot of good information when planning this
proposal, thanks for the links :).

> Let me know if you're interested in engaging with me and I'll 
> do my best to help.  You can reach me on Slack under the handle 
> JinShil, and I think you're clever enough to get my e-mail 
> through the same handle at GitHub, should you choose to contact 
> me that way.  Or we can just go nuts in this thread if you'd 
> like.

Sure I would love to talk more about ideas. For me it doesn't 
really
matter where because I read / lurk basically everywhere. But maybe
better to do it here on the forum in case other people have 
comments
and ideas.


[1] 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mvbxrrpxquvsdjfvfhkc@forum.dlang.org