On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 10:44:28 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 01:17:16 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm not going to argue this much further. Essentially Mir is
touted as a highly generic and portable library. Having it
only work on one language implementation works against that
statement, the credibility of Mir, and the credibility of D as
an universal platform for creating fast code.
Isn't it just a matter of adding "version(LDC)" around the more
optimized blocks?
Having it work in DMD, however slower, is good enough.
(copying from the previous thread:)
I thought so too but if the algorithm is 50x slower, it probably
means you can't develop that algorithm any more (I wouldn't). I
think the common use-case for Mir is a calculation that takes
seconds, so 50x turns a test into a run of several minutes,
defeating the compilation speed advantage of DMD. The way I see
it, faster development with Mir+DMD is not possible.
It is easy to want something, but someone else has to do it and
live with it too. It's up to the Mir devs (**volunteers!**) to
choose which compilers they support. As you can see from the PR
that removed DMD support, the extra burden is substantial.
https://github.com/libmir/mir/pull/347
An extra subjective comment from recent experience: I think LDC
has been very responsive to Mir's needs, thinking _with_ Mir
development instead of fighting it and debating things to death.
Imagine you are developing Mir, want to get something done, and
then read the discussion starting here
https://forum.dlang.org/post/brieiuuuslpzfeiox...@forum.dlang.org
The LDC PR with the requested functionality was submitted less
than two weeks after
(pull was stalled because we don't control our own frontend).
