"Paulo Pinto" <pj...@progtools.org> wrote in message news:ij8he9$2v0o$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message > news:ij7v76$1q4t$1...@digitalmars.com... >> ... (cutted) ... >> >> That's not the compiler, that's the linker. I don't know what linker DMD >> uses on OSX, but on Windows it uses OPTLINK which is written in >> hand-optimized Asm so it's really hard to change. But Walter's been >> converting it to C (and maybe then to D once that's done) bit-by-bit (so >> to speak), so linker improvements are at least on the horizon. >> >> ... > > Why C and not directly D? > > It is really bad adversting for D to know that when its creator came > around to > rewrite the linker, Walter decided to use C instead of D. >
That's jumping to conclusions. C is little more than a high-level assembler. That's why it's a reasonable first step up from Asm. Once it's in C and cleaned up, that's the time for it to move on to D .
