On Thursday, 1 February 2018 at 11:21:37 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
D should be proud of having a reference compiler, a GCC-based
one, and an LLVM-based one. This is a Good Thing™, let no-one
undermine this.
Nothing wrong with choice as long as that choice does not
introduces issues. Currently there are 3 compilers but also 3
different ways to install ( depending on the platform ). DMD has
a installer, LDC needs a manual copy job + path creation, GDC did
not even bother with ( sorry ).
Let alone 'conflicts':
Example: Install DMD ( what has its own DUB ) but also install
LDC ( what has its own DUB), now lets say both version have
different dub versions. Yes, this happened to me and it
conflicted with some of the Editor plugins their build process
because the wrong "version" of dub got selected during the build
process. Its not really a bug but a issue that can trip people (
lost a hour on that one ).
Other issues can be that it makes conversations difficult. When
new people read DMD, LDC, GDC in these forums, you can just as
well be speaking Mandarin ( Chinese ).
Suggestion:
Is it maybe not better to have one "front-end" compiler visible
that people download
Example:
D run main.d
D run main.d --compiler ldc ( not installed? Auto download and
compile using dub )
D run main.d --compiler ldc --options -o3
D run main.d --compiler gdc ( not installed? Auto ...)
D package install web-d
Seen this layout with a some other compilers where everything is
clean integrated.
- Compiler ( default )
-- Run
-- Test
- Package
-- Install
-- Remove
-- Update
- Tools
--- Format
--- Check
- Language server?
No dub, no ldc, gdc, no confusion, just one clean interface. What
happens behind the interface is nobody there business. It just
presents better.
Dub already does half this work with the compiler option but its
a package manager not the "face of D". Hard to explain...
Anyway, too much off-topic?
