On 10/06/2015 4:44 p.m., Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:54:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of
people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact,
strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up
at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me
as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same
people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other
contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that
DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the
latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that
this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level
of delusional double-think.
I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users
of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people
don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in
general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things
and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not
even able to help.
I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to
mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now
for me.
Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well
it's so shinyyyyyy.
I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from
everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies.
If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for
teaching it IMO.
