Re:Rust vs. Go
by flukus on Thursday January 19, 2017 @12:03AM
(#13433165)
It was also commercial and closed source in it's early years wasn't it? I don't think there is a place for commercial compilers anymore.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
D was always Open Source and free as in beer. It was not Free Software, which is a problem for inclusion in Debian main et al. You get the package from a third-party repo.
The reference compiler backend is still only free as in beer, so there seems to be no way to include "DMD" in Debian. However, LDC (reference frontend + LLVM backend) is practically in sync with DMD today.
The advantage of DMD is faster compilation. LDC gives you faster programs. So, for development I prefer DMD for the faster iteration.
Was it restriction free or did it have limitations on things like stack size like a lot of commercial compilers did?
No restrictions. There was nothing you could pay for in D.
The backend comes from the Digital Mars C++ compiler, which is/was commercial. That is probably the source of the confusion.
Re:Rust vs. Go
by tonyedgecombe on Thursday January 19, 2017 @03:31AM
(#13434094)
It will be a shame if that's the case.
Why is that? History with commercial compilers have shown them to create nothing but vendor lock-in.
Re:Rust vs. Go
by tonyedgecombe on Friday January 20, 2017 @06:38AM
(#13443086)
More choice, I don't want an open source mono-culture.