SDC & ddmd
dolive89 at sina.com
Sat Dec 10 01:08:33 PST 2011
Jakob Ovrum Ð´µ½:
> On Saturday, ï¿½ï¿½ 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.
More information about the Digitalmars-d