D parser in tango or phobos

[Sascha Katzner]

Alexander Panek wrote:
> I completely agree. Aside from the sheer prestige of having a D compiler 
> written in D, I think the language and especially the compiler & 
> toolchain quality itself would benefit from Walter excessively using his 
>  own language. After all, he has to walk around the same traps everybody 
> else does when using D/DMD. I also think D should provide a whole 
> toolchain written in D1, namely frontend, backend, testing, 
> documentation and building (we have the last one already with DSSS, 
> fortunately). Another benefit of this would include the possibility to 
> actually use the D frontend for third party tools, since it's written in 
> D. Of course, we have an open source frontend already, but it's written 
> in C and poorly documented - no offense intended -, thus actually not 
> really usable unless you spend quite some time digging through the 
> source and writing D wrappers for it.
> 
> Frankly said, I would have thought of D1 written in D1 as the next step 
> in  language development, instead of a "forked" experimental D2 
> compiler. But that's just me.

After that we could also finally get rid of the C runtime library on 
this way and reduce the overall size of the compiled applications. These 
are two further important points - at least in my opinion.

In VC I'd love the fact that it is possible to write applications that 
are only a few kb small and also to compile them without including the C 
Runtime library at all. It would be great if that was also possible in D.

LLAP,
Sascha