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

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/05/12 05:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Well, that's what FUD does. It creates Fear Uncertainty and Doubt without
> being backed by facts. It just creates damage. So, the situation itself
> shouldn't be a problem, but people keep bringing it up anyway, which _does_
> cause us problems.

If anything the present debate has confirmed, again, that the practical 
implications of the backend licence are negligible, that there are at least 2 
valid and fully open-source alternative compilers, and that the core D community 
strongly supports those alternatives.  But you have to get _into_ the debate to 
appreciate that.

The problem is rather the note on Wikipedia which points out that the reference 
compiler backend is not open source.  That's a fact, and it's a fact which leads 
people to make damaging assumptions.  And there's not really a lot you can do 
about that while the fact remains as it is.

FWIW I think there have been positive sides to the proprietary backend.  I'm not 
sure we'd have had GDC or LDC if the backend had been open source, and GDC 
produces much more efficient code -- D is much more able to compete with C++ 
speed-wise as a result.

> Yeah, but I don't know how. As long as Semantec has the rights to it and won't
> change its license, we don't have much choice - not unless we want to replace
> the whole thing.

Assuming that LLVM is not an acceptable backend despite its permissive licence, 
and that the community can't buy out the code, I'd suggest again the idea of 
stabilizing the frontend and then synchronizing DMD, GDC and LDC updates, with 
all 3 endorsed as equally valid implementations of the reference standard.