Jakob Ovrum дµ½: > On Saturday, �� December 2011 at 05:48:18 UTC, dolive wrote: > > > > Why do need to re-create a new compiler not participate in the > > maintenance ddmd ? > > What better features than ddmd ? > > I assume you are comparing SDC and DDMD on the basis that they're > both written in D. While being written in D is a main point for > SDC, it's not the only one. > > SDC is written from scratch with no other dependency than LLVM. > Like LDC, it uses LLVM for the back-end, but unlike LDC, it > doesn't use the DMD front-end. > > GDC and LDC inherit all the advantages and disadvantages of the > DMD front-end. They get the whole language, or at least as far as > the reference compiler implements it, up front. But they also get > all the baggage of DMD: bugs, legacy code, etc. The SDC front-end > is written with only D2 in mind and inherits no code from any C++ > or D1 compiler, while DMD was built incrementally while D was a > moving target. Due to all of this, the design of the codebase is > fundamentally different from DMD. > > On the other hand, DDMD is a massive project in its own right. > First you have to convert all of DMD's sources to D, then you can > get onto the real task: turning the new code into idiomatic D > instead of "C++ with a D compiler". And you have to keep it up to > date with DMD development until DDMD is ready to take over. > > It's not yet clear which approach is "better", only time will > tell. But the SDC project has already reaped benefits from its > approach, and the design allows for many improvements as the > project moves forward. > > Do note that as an SDC dev, I do have a bias in this comparison, > but feel free to come up with some actual arguments for DDMD :)
Thank you for detailed explanation, Whether the design can refer to dil international support ideas(I have the impression). Language packs can be provided by a third party. thank's ! dolive
