D Language 2.0

[Walter Bright]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I can totally accept that 486 in particular is pretty much dead, but unless 
> there's some specific advantage that can be only be gained by breaking 486 
> support, I see no reason for "It supports 486" to be something worth whining 
> about.

The compiler does a pretty good job scheduling Pentium instructions for 
the U-V pipe. I had thought that was hopelessly obsolete, but then along 
came the Intel Atom where, guess what, doing Pentium scheduling is a big 
win!