On 26-01-2012 18:06, xancorreu wrote:
Al 26/01/12 17:15, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
versa?
what the feature of one of them over the other?
what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
performance, platform and bugs?
They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the
same.
dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
have unique bugs in its glue code.
gdc also inherits gcc's multiplatform support, together with platform
specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.
I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not. An
alternative is ldc, also free.
Huh? Surely you mean the DMD back end? Everything else is either GPL or
Boost.
On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is
just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is
PITA on Win though.
Building gcc in general is a pain. It's just a little less painful on
*nix systems, but still painful.
On Linux the difference isn't that big.
Hmm, maybe somebody should write a D compiler in D. That will prove that
D is a worthwhile language. ;-) You can then bootstrap it by compiling
it with gdc, dmd, or whatever you wish, then recompile it with itself
(gcc-style). All sorts of neat stuff you can do there.
T
A painful is the lack of documentation: there is only API/Classes docs
and few html pages. The books are non-free and there are not worth
tutorials. I like D but definitively it makes me back!. Compare for
example golang and D. Both relatively new languages (D is elder) and you
have many more docs about golang than D. You have not a bunch of docs,
docs you get with python or perl, but it's worthy amount.
Just my opinion,
Xan.
- Alex
