Top 5

[Robert Fraser]

Aarti_pl wrote:
> Bill Baxter pisze:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
>> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
>> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
>> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
>> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I think the same.
> 
> And similar think can happen in nearest future also. LDC (was LLVMDC) is 
> approaching release quality very fast. Who will use DMD then, while you 
> will have better compiler with more bugs fixed than in DMD, better 
> linker and optimizer and more open people working currently on LDC?
> 
> This is for D core team to rethink how to cooperate with LDC team, so 
> that community can get best from resources we have. Maintaining obsolete 
> back-end by Walter will be loose-loose situation for everyone.
> 
> It might sound like contradiction but it seems that more openness gives 
> more control finally.
> 
> BR
> Marcin Kuszczak
> (aarti_pl)

I hope so, but realistically LDC only works on x86 Linux and there's a 
lot of work getting it to work on other platforms (much of this work on 
LLVM itself instead of just LDC).