"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "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. >
Although that said, DDMD *did* already solve that problem, so maybe it wouldn't be too bad after all? > And since people seem to be getting by with the C++-based source, I'm sure > there's lots of more important priorities. >
