SDC & ddmd

[dolive]

Jakob Ovrum дµ½:

> On Saturday, �� December 2011 at 05:48:18 UTC, dolive wrote:
> >
> > Why do need to re-create a new compiler not participate in the 
> > maintenance ddmd ?
> > What better features than ddmd ?
> 
> I assume you are comparing SDC and DDMD on the basis that they're 
> both written in D. While being written in D is a main point for 
> SDC, it's not the only one.
> 
> SDC is written from scratch with no other dependency than LLVM. 
> Like LDC, it uses LLVM for the back-end, but unlike LDC, it 
> doesn't use the DMD front-end.
> 
> GDC and LDC inherit all the advantages and disadvantages of the 
> DMD front-end. They get the whole language, or at least as far as 
> the reference compiler implements it, up front. But they also get 
> all the baggage of DMD: bugs, legacy code, etc. The SDC front-end 
> is written with only D2 in mind and inherits no code from any C++ 
> or D1 compiler, while DMD was built incrementally while D was a 
> moving target. Due to all of this, the design of the codebase is 
> fundamentally different from DMD.
> 
> On the other hand, DDMD is a massive project in its own right. 
> First you have to convert all of DMD's sources to D, then you can 
> get onto the real task: turning the new code into idiomatic D 
> instead of "C++ with a D compiler". And you have to keep it up to 
> date with DMD development until DDMD is ready to take over.
> 
> It's not yet clear which approach is "better", only time will 
> tell. But the SDC project has already reaped benefits from its 
> approach, and the design allows for many improvements as the 
> project moves forward.
> 
> Do note that as an SDC dev, I do have a bias in this comparison, 
> but feel free to come up with some actual arguments for DDMD :)


Thank you for detailed explanation, Whether the design can refer to dil  international support ideas(I have the impression). Language packs can be provided by a third party.

thank's !

dolive