tooling quality and some random rant

[Paulo Pinto]

Hi,

I am sorry, but I don't belive it.

Many other systems programming languages that atempted to displace C and 
C++, have
the toolchain built in its languages, after the compilers were bootstrapped, 
as anyone
with enough compiler knowledge will surely tell you.

And D's linker must first be written in C, to make it easy to rewrite in D?!

A linker is not science fiction, it is just a program that binds object 
files and libraries together
to produce an executable. Any programming language able to manipulate files 
and binary
data, can be used to create a linker.

--
Paulo


"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:ij8iau$30jr$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp at progtools.org> wrote in message 
> news:ij8he9$2v0o$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
>> news:ij7v76$1q4t$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> ... (cutted) ...
>>>
>>> That's not the compiler, that's the linker. I don't know what linker DMD 
>>> uses on OSX, but on Windows it uses OPTLINK which is written in 
>>> hand-optimized Asm so it's really hard to change. But Walter's been 
>>> converting it to C (and maybe then to D once that's done) bit-by-bit (so 
>>> to speak), so linker improvements are at least on the horizon.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> Why C and not directly D?
>>
>> It is really bad adversting for D to know that when its creator came 
>> around to
>> rewrite the linker, Walter decided to use C instead of D.
>>
>
> That's jumping to conclusions. C is little more than a high-level 
> assembler. That's why it's a reasonable first step up from Asm. Once it's 
> in C and cleaned up, that's the time for it to move on to D
> .
>