OpenEuphoria

Re: Gauging interest in DMC

• Posted by Rick Bettis <rmb25612 at yah?o.co?> Oct 02, 2007
• 555 views

"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