downs wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> downs wrote:
>>> As it stands, the claim on the homepage that it's easier to implement
>>> a D compiler than a C++ one is highly dubious.
>> Since I'm the only person to have implemented both, I think I'm in a
>> good position to judge that yes, it is easier!
> 
> Well, I can't really argue with that, but please consider that you 
> implemented the C++ compiler against a "known set of features", at least in 
> part, so to speak, whereas DMD grew with the language. An outsider would face 
> the difficulty of building a reliable C++ compiler, vs. a reliable D 
> compiler, _from scratch_.

Word of explanation follow-up: when I started writing the original post, I 
thought the homepage said D strived to be simple to implement; when I checked 
and found it actually said that D strived to be simpler than C++ I had to 
change my post.

Walter, of course I didn't intend to criticize your knowledge of your own 
compiler; the implied accusation makes me feel bad in retrospect :p

It's just that I feel that D could and should be simpler than it is, and I'm 
worried that no attention will be paid to that problem before the 2.0 release.

That is all, really.

Reply via email to