On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said
Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?
This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main
production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for
compilation.
This is something which has been asked on my blog[1], and I do
agree that having a completely free-as-in-freedom reference
compiler would be an awesome win for the D ecosystem, and would
pretty much kill most of the issues we have at distros to
package D stuff. D is very unique with its half-proprietary
compiler.
LDC seems to be a pretty good fit for replacing the backend.
Shifting to LDC as reference compiler would basically mean to
slowly give up DMD though, because other than being tested
much, there wouldn't be a compelling reason to still use it
when focus has shifted to LDC / GDC.
In any case, this is definitely something for Walter and Andrei
to decide, and I do have a feeling that this question might
have been raised already in the past...
[1]:
http://blog.tenstral.net/2016/05/adventures-in-d-programming.html#comment-265879
The case for DMD though is compile speed. It really changes the
way one writes programs and makes it possible to write bash
script-like functionality in D because of a rapid compile-run
cycle.
LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent
in the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC mode
which compiles as rapidly as DMD?
