On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
even if DMD is the official reference compiler, the download
page http://dlang.org/download.html already mentions "strong
optimization" as pro of GDC/LDC vs. "very fast compilation
speeds" as pro of DMD.
If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the
next question which pops up is about compilation speed....
Yeah. dmd's compilation speed has been a huge win for us and
tends to make a very good first impression. And as far as
development goes, fast compilation speed matters a lot more
than fast binaries. So, assuming that they're compatible enough
(which ideally they are but aren't always), I would argue that
the best approach would be to use dmd to develop your code and
then use gdc or ldc to build the production binary. We benefit
by having all of these compilers, and I seriously question that
changing which one is the "official" one is going to help any.
It just shifts which set of complaints we get.
- Jonathan M Davis
Yep. Fast compilation during development must not be sacrificed
for fast binaries. What are you really building to have fast
binaries during development?
However, I strongly agree with cleaning up the language instead
of adding more features.
