Good point. The reason to have D compiler written in D is that D code is far less error-prone, then C++, while giving the tools for very high-level modeling of the problem it solves (which DMD doesn't seem to use). Well, seems like all the "exciting stuff", like a new major version and a new front-end are left for serious consideration only when the current one is fully developed.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:45 Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: >> I agree, that rewriting the language is not a good idea until the >> current version is fully studied, so i don't want D3 either. D2 is >> good enough for now. >> But I don't have D2 because most of what makes it unique isn't >> implemented or is buggy. And i still won't have it for a long long >> time (I really want classes in CTFE, for example). > > Having a D compiler for D would be cool, but really, does it matter? At least, > to the average programmer? The average programmer wants a compiler that works. > Fixing dmd's bugs gets you that. That's what's being done. Rewriting dmd in D > doesn't help with that at all. In fact it makes it worse, because it's > inevitable that new bugs will be introduced. > > In the long run, it would be nice to have a compiler in D (maybe even the > primary compiler), and maybe such a compiler could be more performant thanks > to slicing and the like. But until D2 is fully stable, that just seems like > wasted effort. There are far more important things for getting D2 fully > usable. The operative word is "nice." It would be _nice_ if we had a fully > working D compiler in D, but it's far from necessary and really doesn't gain > us much at this point in time. > > I honestly don't understand why having a D compiler in written in D is so > important to some people. What we need is a solid compiler. The language that > it's in doesn't matter all that much IMHO. Yes, it's a good sign for D if it > can have a fully functional, performant compiler written in D (especially if > it's _more_ performant than a comparable compiler written in C++), but what > matters is being able to write your own code in D, not whether the tools > you're using were written in any particular language. > > However, regardless of why you might want another D compiler with a new > frontend, I think that it would make a _lot_ of sense to wait until D2's spec > has completely stabilized (it's fairly stable now but not completely stable), > and dmd is more or less bug-free (obviously not completely bug-free, but on > the level typically expected of a compiler). That would severely reduce how > much rewriting you would have to do as D and dmd change, and the problem would > become much more tractable. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
