From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Walter Bright Subject: Re: dmd D Programming Language compiler Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:58:49 -0700 Message-ID: <55087969.8080202@digitalmars.com> References: <54F78214.4040908@digitalmars.com> <877fufk02r.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXwip-00052o-0F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:00:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXwif-0005QC-Q4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:00:10 -0400 Received: from digitalmars.com ([162.217.114.56]:52130) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXwif-0005Ev-KZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:00:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <877fufk02r.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 3/17/2015 10:25 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Walter, > > Apologies for the late reply. > > Walter Bright skribis: > >> The D programming language compiler has been called dmd since about >> 2000 or so. In order to avoid confusion, may I request that the Gnu >> dmd ("Daemons-managing Daemon") change its acronym? > For the record, GNU’s dmd has been around since ~2003¹. > > Changing names is obviously an annoyance, technically and otherwise. > We’re not opposed to the idea, but that would take a bit more discussion > among developers. Thanks for considering this. I appreciate it. > > BTW, it is unfortunate that Digital Mars’ compiler back-end denies² its > users essential freedoms to help each other (through redistribution), to > adjust the code as they see fit, and to gain collective control of it > and improve it. I hope you will reconsider this choice and choose a > free software license. I agree, but Symantec does not agree with changing the license, so I'm stuck (yes, I've tried). On the other hand, the gdc and ldc D compilers are based on open source back ends.