"Gor Gyolchanyan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I know, this has been discussed earlier, but i don't quite understand > the real reason why isn't DMD's front-end being written in D. > Existing DDMD is pointless (and i think abandoned), because it's just > a plain rewrite with the same C-style constructs and completely > rewriting it to be a correct D code would mean being unable to get the > bug-fixes on DMD. > I remember, that Walter said about the problems with compatibility > with the back-end, that would arise. > But isn't D supposed to be binary compatible with C? > AFAIK the only extra thing to be done would be to provide a C facade > around the D front-end, that would be given to the back-end. > Why not?
FWIW, There's isn't a very strong separation between the frontend and backend. A lot of the backend functions are in the same AST classes that also have a lot of front-end stuff. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that could be difficult to have classes that are partially implemented in C++ and partially in D. And since people seem to be getting by with the C++-based source, I'm sure there's lots of more important priorities.
