Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:32:34 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:16:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:04:14 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend
> > > with new code that isn't entangled by the previous license?
> > 
> > It's a _ton_ of work for arguably little benefit. What we have for dmd
> > works just fine, and if you want a fully open source backend, you can
> > use gdc or ldc.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Right, so what's the reason behind not adopting gdc or ldc as the
> reference compiler?

If nothing else, because Walter would be unable to work on it. He avoids 
looking at the source for any other compilers, because doing so could cause 
him legal issues when working on dmd/dmc's backend, which he does 
professionally. And given that Walter has worked on the backend for over 20 
years, I can't imagine that he's going to be all that excited at the prospect 
of throwing it away in favor of another one.

Once the front-end has stabilized (and it's getting there), it should become a 
non-issue, because then even if gdc and ldc are a version or two behind, it 
won't affect anywhere near as much (it will also likely become easier at that 
point for the gdc and ldc devs to keep them up-to-date).

- Jonathan M Davis