On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:59:36 -0700, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 02:10:49 bearophile wrote:
> My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD
> will remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research
> compiler, but for actual work people will use LDC or GDC.
The D reference compiler can't be DMD forever.
Why not? Having multiple compilers is great, but I seriously doubt that
Walter
is going to work on any other compiler (I don't believe that he _can_
legally
work on any other - except maybe if he writes a new one himself -
because he'd
get into licensing issues with dmc), and unless you're talking about
years
(decades?) from now, I very much doubt that the reference compiler is
going to
be a compiler that Walter Bright can't work on.
I see no problem with dmd being the reference compiler and continuing to
be
so. And if other compilers get used more because their backends are
faster,
that's fine too.
- Jonathan M Davis
Walter can't use LLVM? Why not? He wouldn't have to work on LLVM and the
glue code is considered front-end. I admit I am not terribly well informed
of the legal issues here. But it seems to me that bolting the DMDFE onto a
different back--end can't be a problem because the agreement only covers
the DMCBE, and the DMDFE is 100% Walter owned, he can do with it what he
pleases and all Symantec can do is pout..
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
