== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article > dolive Wrote: > > thanks��great work ! > > make an all out effort ! > I've implemented 127 missing methods (958 down to 831) yesterday. > druntime compiles for a long time now (producing exactly the same binaries > that DMD produces) and I hope that Phobos will be there soon enough. > I'd say it is 80% complete but still missing a few key components. > I have only tested it on Win32, but Linux might work, too (the was some work done to support it). > Keep in mind that it is based on DMD2.032 which is almost a year old. It is > also D2-only ATM but I believe D1 support can be added with little effort since a lot of the code is shared between the two versions with differences being versioned out. I tried not to break anything as much as I could. > I'll report more when I manage to compile Phobos entirely.
So when ddmd finally works fully, is Walter going to ditch the C++ codebase and base the official DMD implementation on ddmd? This would be great for a few reasons: 1. The PR benefits of having a self-hosting D compiler. 2. If Walter is eating his own dogfood, it will give him a better feel for what bugs are high vs. low priority. 3. If the productivity of D is higher than C++ by as much as we think it is, DMD should progress faster after the switch is made. I have my doubts, though, about the productivity benefits of D when you throw legacy code translated from old-school C++ into the mix. 4. I probably speak for a lot of people on this one, and one reason why I don't contribute to DMD even though I contribute to Phobos is because DMD is in C++ and I don't know C++ thoroughly. I know the basic syntax and semantics of the language, but I'm not so familiar with the idioms, conventions, gotchas and corner cases. I'd be a lot more inclined to help out with DMD if it were written in D.