DDMD and such.

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:j5vf1k$2c29$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Gor Gyolchanyan" <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.246.1317215375.26225.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>I know, this has been discussed earlier, but i don't quite understand
>> the real reason why isn't DMD's front-end being written in D.
>> Existing DDMD is pointless (and i think abandoned), because it's just
>> a plain rewrite with the same C-style constructs and completely
>> rewriting it to be a correct D code would mean being unable to get the
>> bug-fixes on DMD.
>> I remember, that Walter said about the problems with compatibility
>> with the back-end, that would arise.
>> But isn't D supposed to be binary compatible with C?
>> AFAIK the only extra thing to be done would be to provide a C facade
>> around the D front-end, that would be given to the back-end.
>> Why not?
>
> FWIW, There's isn't a very strong separation between the frontend and 
> backend. A lot of the backend functions are in the same AST classes that 
> also have a lot of front-end stuff. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing 
> that could be difficult to have classes that are partially implemented in 
> C++ and partially in D.
>

Although that said, DDMD *did* already solve that problem, so maybe it 
wouldn't be too bad after all?

> And since people seem to be getting by with the C++-based source, I'm sure 
> there's lots of more important priorities.
>