DMD 1.031 and 2.015 releases

[Georg Wrede]

Charles Hixson wrote:
> A D compiler option to emit C code?  (Or C++ code?)  It wouldn't need to 
> be as efficient as D-to-executable in order to be portable.

There's no reason this code would be any less efficient than the ASM the 
D compiler has to generate anyway. After all, the "C language" is 
actually not a language, it is more like a CPU independent symbolic 
assembly language. (At least in the K&R days it was.)

While technologically an interesting option, I'd think that in a 
political way this would be unwise. Not to mention the credibility of D.

> (Yes, it would probably be a huge undertaking.  But it's an option for 
> portability that would allow D to be written in D.  I believe this kind 
> of bootstrapping was first used by Algol.)

/Technologically/, that is, in programming practice, it would be a huge 
success. Such a compiler could then immediately be used in an immense 
variety of domains. And additionally, many companies would then 
hand-tweak the C code in subtle but important ways, to really achieve 
astounding performance and suitability for possibly quite exotic needs.

It could also give D access to both smaller and larger CPUs than today.