On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 21:25:22 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 20:53:09 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
DMD is a problem for all the D ecosystem.
It supports only x86, has a proprietary backend license,
generates very, very slow and ugly code.
Only one feature : it's faster than ldc for example and it's
only because 1.5 humans want to optimize ldc.
DMD should be dropped in favor of ldc.
By your logic we should also drop support for Windows, since
currently only DMD supports Windows well. It would be really
stupid to focus on only one backend. Being backend agnostic is
a far better objective. Why should anyone be tied to using
_only_ LLVM? For example, AFAIK, GDC has far superior support
for embedded platforms. Also having a reference implementation
_different_ from GDC and LDC has advantages on its own.
DMD's backend isn't holding back GDC or LDC in any way.
Nowadays there are quite few changes in that area so DMD's
backend isn't stealing manpower that would otherwise go to LDC
or GDC. Surprisingly, in the last few months I have the
impression that DMD has far less codegen bugs than LDC and GDC,
though I maybe wrong.
because versions are released with GDC and LDC lagging 2-3
versions behind, when DMD is unusable for production quality
codegen.
2.068 is almost out and GDC and LDC both only support 2.066.
Until D decides to adopt either GDC or LDC as a real backend,
this will never be fixed.
