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.