GCC 4.6

[Walter Bright]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Well, I expect that if you didn't produce a high quality compiler, you wouldn't 
> have been out of business ages ago. In many ways, Microsoft's compiler is the de 
> facto standard for C++ development on Windows, so you're going to have to do 
> something to stand out if you want people to go with dmc. So, dmc pretty much 
> has to be of high quality or it would be dead by now. Personally, I'd never even 
> heard of you or Digital Mars prior to learning about D, and I'm sure that there 
> are plenty of other C++ programmers out there in the same boat. Just because dmc 
> isn't bigger than Microsoft's compiler doesn't mean that it's worse. If 
> anything, the fact that it's still used in spite of Microsoft's dominance 
> implies that it's actually better than Microsoft's compiler.


The compilers have always been different, and appeal to different programmers. A 
lot like DMC for its fast compile speeds, 80 bit long doubles, DOS support, 
source code comes with it, more personal support, smaller size, etc.