On 28 July 2014 21:34, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/28/14, 11:24 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: >> >> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> >>> There'd also be the argument that using phobos inside ddmd would make >>> the latter a better test for itself and phobos. -- Andrei >> >> >> This is true, but my main concern is the quality of the compiler source. >> >> My main concerns are: (not in order) >> - Compile time >> - Binary bloat >> - Reduced scrutiny of code that is used in the compiler - I review every >> single compiler patch, but I do not have time to do that for phobos too >> - The compiler must build with the last release, and with HEAD. HEAD >> phobos only needs to build with HEAD. >> - Some other things. > > > The way I see some of these liabilities is as dogfooding. For example if > slow compile times and code bloat become a problem with ddmd they are also a > problem with other large D programs, and it's good to have an extra > incentive to fix them. >
Indeed, before this topic gets derailed any further. Do you have any thoughts on the initial post? Iain.
