On 6/1/15 6:43 PM, weaselcat wrote:
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:21:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being
2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too
slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;)
Given how slow they are at compiling? Not a chance. dmd's speed is a
huge feature.
dmd's speed is fast only in comparison with C++ compilers, go runs
circles around it.
You are right! go spits out an error that my D code isn't compilable in
much faster time than dmd can compile it.
it seems like it would be easier to fix LDC's compiling speed than make
a 20-year old ex-C++ backend be able to compete with LLVM/GCC's codegen.
or else LDC and GDC are going to forever lag behind dmd due to a lack of
manpower, so you have to pick between being able to have relevant
bugfixes, new features, etc from the past ~12-18, or having code that
runs faster than C# on mono.
The way everyone says "just develop with dmd, then use LDC/GDC for
speed!" is ridiculous considering I frequently have to alter my code to
even work with LDC/GDC.
This I agree with. Daniel mentioned at dconf that he would like to merge
the front-ends, so the issues between compilers would be much easier to
solve.
-Steve
