Patches, bottlenecks, OpenSource

[Don]

bearophile wrote:
> Don:
> 
>> And really, D doesn't need many people working on the DMD compiler.<
> 
> I agree, it's like having many people working around a dead corpse trying to revive it. Better use the time to adopt gcc and llvm back-ends at their best, keeping in mind, while designing D, that there are features that those back-ends have and the dmd back-end doesn't have that it will be good to add to the language. Simple example: refusing computed gotos because they are a lot of work to implement is not a justification that holds if both gcc and llvm already implement them and allow the front-end to just use them in a simple enough way.
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

That's not what I meant. The fraction of the community working on 
compilers should be very small.

BTW the DMD backend really has very few bugs. Historically, much less 
than 1% of the bugs in DMD are in the backend. Currently there are 2 
open backend bugs, and they're both extremely obscure.