1. Gauging interest in DMC
So, the project I was working on before I went on vacation in the middle of
August was porting Euphoria to work with the Digital Mars C compiler. I got to
the point where the C files would compile (without optimizations or warnings and
with a few command-line options) but even though it would be pretty easy, I
haven't yet fixed the translator to work with it. So as of this point it is
untested.
Does anyone else use DMC? Is anyone interested in this?
Unfortunately, just as I finally got back my motivation to code I went on
vacation and I haven't gotten motivated again yet. So I need to know whether this
is a worthwhile project.
A similar project that would be interesting (and probably easier) would be to
port to the MingW32 compiler.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
2. Re: Gauging interest in DMC
And here was I thinking that Run DMC was still a hip hop group, not a Euphoria
program.
--
Craig
3. Re: Gauging interest in DMC
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> A similar project that would be interesting (and probably easier) would be to
> port to the MingW32 compiler.
I think MingW32 would be more interesting/useful. And since there's already
gcc support, it should require fewer changes, although some of the ifdef
logic will probably have to change from platform--centric (i.e., ELINUX, EBSD)
to compiler-centric (EWATCOM, EGCC, etc).
Matt
4. Re: Gauging interest in DMC
- Posted by Rick Bettis <rmb25612 at yah?o.co?>
Oct 02, 2007
-
Last edited Oct 03, 2007
"To dream, the impossible dream"... of "The Perfect" scripting language/compiler
solution...
Compilers (and scripting languages) are my "Dulcinea del Toboso*", but I'll try
a few lucid thoughts on the subject anyway :)
1. MinGW is slow, complex to use (okay so is gcc), largish (10's and 10's of
megabytes), and years out of sync with the latest gcc.
MinGW is the "if we could only really find the time to fix it all" loving work
of well meaning amateurs.
So while I do use it, getting others at work to use it causes wailing and
gnashing of teeth...
http://www.mingw.org/
2. Open Watcom would be "THEE" logical compiler upgrade, but it's almost 70
megabytes to download :(
And Open Watcom is the proverbial camel run over by the committee bus.
http://www.openwatcom.org/
3. DMC is fast, easy to use, compact (less than 5 megabytes to download), and
highly compliant to C/C++ standards.
Walter Bright's commitment to DMC and to D is simular to what Robert Craig's is
to Euphoria.
Create simple to use, high performance tools to foster user driven solutions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/
Most importantly as a programmer, if something is terribly wrong with their
"baby", Walter or Robert will not sleep until they fix it :)
( And they will at least entertain any of your "impossible dream" ideas without
flaming you as a total Sancho Panza ;)
So while I still use the Borland compiler (for Euphoria), and as a cyber Don
Quixote have longed for a better MinGW windmill.
I find myself using DMC and D more and more in my "real" C/C++ programming.
So Euphoria compiled by DMC would be useful to me.
And if it's as close as you say, I would finish it.
Reguards, Don Quijote "DMC" la Euphoria "D" la Mancha...
------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
