Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jan 2012 22:10 UTC
General Development "Today Mozilla and the Rust community are releasing version 0.1 of the Rust compiler and associated tools. Rust is a strongly-typed systems programming language with a focus on memory safety and concurrency. This is the initial release of the compiler after a multi-year development cycle focusing on self-hosting, implementation of major features, and solidifying the syntax. Version 0.1 should be considered an alpha release, suitable for early adopters and language enthusiasts. It's nifty, but it will still eat your laundry."
Thread beginning with comment 504484
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What is the motivation?
by fithisux on Wed 25th Jan 2012 10:30 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

Last night I decided to give a spin on my msys/mingw system (half of my OS :-) actually )

I found out that they depend on LLVM. While running the configure script I decided to take a more careful look at their web-page. In this page they hope that one day parts of Firefox could be written in the future in Rust.

That made me wonder. Why D is not suitable? Why they do not back LDC2?
In D they could start immediately replacing parts of FF with minimal to moderate performance lost. They could port their wrappers from Rust to D and have a better environment.

Moreover D has ide support and syntax highlighting support. And it seems that it does exactly what they need.

Google Go also has these features in a smaller degree but it could also offer simplified concurrent programming facilities.

But D has been tested in real apps (like Entice/Poseidon/Bud-build) and other projects. Personally I have used Go to port a network frame grabber from C++. I reached the same speed with one file that compiled on windows and a minimally modified counterpart for Ubuntu. It was a very fun / painless experience. I can recommend it but I do not have GUI experience in Go. It seems not mature. OTOH, D also supports conditional compilation. It is a killer feature.

IMO, LDC2 is an effort that Mozilla should back.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What is the motivation?
by darknexus on Wed 25th Jan 2012 11:04 in reply to "What is the motivation?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

That made me wonder. Why D is not suitable?


I might be wrong about this, but aren't there some convoluted licensing issues around D that would cause problems for them? I was under the impression that, while version 1 of the D language specification is open (though the official compiler is not), version 2 wasn't. I could be wrong about this. I researched it once and I remember getting a headache trying to wrap my brain around the licensing. Anyone more knowledgeable than me on this care to clarify or correct me, please?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What is the motivation?
by Not2Sure on Wed 25th Jan 2012 12:41 in reply to "RE: What is the motivation?"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

I might be wrong about this, but aren't there some convoluted licensing issues around D that would cause problems for them? I was under the impression that, while version 1 of the D language specification is open (though the official compiler is not), version 2 wasn't. I could be wrong about this. I researched it once and I remember getting a headache trying to wrap my brain around the licensing. Anyone more knowledgeable than me on this care to clarify or correct me, please?


I'm not sure what you mean by an "open" specification. People use the term in so many ways anymore.

If by "official" compiler you mean the digitalmars one, the frontend is available under a dual license, Artistic and GPL. The source for the digitalmars backend remains proprietary afaik but how that would affect the Mozilla foundation I have no idea. There are also GCC and LLVM backends available under GPL and BSD respectively.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: What is the motivation?
by moondevil on Wed 25th Jan 2012 15:05 in reply to "RE: What is the motivation?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"That made me wonder. Why D is not suitable?


I might be wrong about this, but aren't there some convoluted licensing issues around D that would cause problems for them? I was under the impression that, while version 1 of the D language specification is open (though the official compiler is not), version 2 wasn't. I could be wrong about this. I researched it once and I remember getting a headache trying to wrap my brain around the licensing. Anyone more knowledgeable than me on this care to clarify or correct me, please?
"


All those issues are long gone. There are three implementations available:

- DMD - Official one from Digital Mars
- GDC - D implementation for GCC. It will be made part of GCC official languages in the 4.7 or 4.8 release.
- LDC - LLVM backend implementation

Please note that nowadays D means D2. D1 will no longer be supported by end of 2012.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: What is the motivation?
by Not2Sure on Wed 25th Jan 2012 12:49 in reply to "What is the motivation?"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

I am also on the D bandwagon but the lack of momentum or interest for ARM support is problematic.

Reply Parent Score: 1