DDMD and such.

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-09-29 04:34, Trass3r wrote:
>>> I think dmd should keep going its way and provide a base..
>>> (remember that it also provides a base for gdc/ldc. If dmd switched to D
>>> there would also be no updates for LDC and GDC anymore)
>>
>> Why wouldn't it? LDC and GDC can use the frontend written in D.
>
> No, they are totally based on dmd. Written in C++, directly accessing
> the AST nodes (i.e. no "interface") and even modifying the nodes to
> contain additional info.

If DMD can use a fronend written in D and a backend in C++ so could GDC 
and LDC.

>> To get this frontend I think the DMD frontend needs to be ported to D
>> without much modification in the first step. DMD would then use the D
>> version of the frontend. When the complete frontend is ported and used
>> by DMD, then we could start refactoring the frontend to make it more
>> modular.
>>
>> I think this is the most realistic approach. I don't think Walter
>> would just drop the DMD frontend and start with a new one, or use some
>> other frontend developed by someone else.
>
> And he also won't drop dmd even for a 1-to-1 port ;)

I really hope you're wrong. If it IS a 1-to-1 port it would be DMD and 
he wouldn't drop DMD, it would just be written in D instead of C++.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg