On 7/28/14, 11:24 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:lr6395$19r7$1...@digitalmars.com...
There'd also be the argument that using phobos inside ddmd would make
the latter a better test for itself and phobos. -- Andrei
This is true, but my main concern is the quality of the compiler source.
My main concerns are: (not in order)
- Compile time
- Binary bloat
- Reduced scrutiny of code that is used in the compiler - I review every
single compiler patch, but I do not have time to do that for phobos too
- The compiler must build with the last release, and with HEAD. HEAD
phobos only needs to build with HEAD.
- Some other things.
The way I see some of these liabilities is as dogfooding. For example if
slow compile times and code bloat become a problem with ddmd they are
also a problem with other large D programs, and it's good to have an
extra incentive to fix them.
Anyway, there is no rush. We will have plenty of time to talk about
this after ddmd becomes dmd.
That's the spirit!
Andrei
