On 3/7/2013 7:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > On 3/7/2013 7:27 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: >> "Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> On 3/7/2013 7:09 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: >>> That's correct. However, it'll be much more maintainable, >> >> I don't know how much redesign you're planning, but I can't imagine it ever >> being as maintainable as a pure d codebase. A less stable/complete linker >> that attracts more contributors should overtake a more stable linker with >> only a couple of developers that grok it. > > That's true, but we don't have that other linker yet. > > The other thing is, we just don't have a need for our own linker for any > platform other than win32. So what's the cost > benefit moving forward? I think it's easier to just fix optlink's bugs. > > I don't want to discourage people from trying to come up with a replacement > linker for win32 written in D. I think that > is a great project. But while a linker is a conceptually simple program, the > awful file formats involved make it > unnecessarily difficult and there are simply a lot of details and other > things one has to do. > > Like I said before, it'll take a sustained and determined effort to come up > with a viable replacement for optlink.
Personally, even though I don't use win32, I believe that moving it over to use the VS toolchain and runtime is the right path forward.
