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

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:03:01 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:


> Re friends: I always think it's a good idea to have lots, and from as  
> diverse a range of backgrounds as possible.  I just don't see what  
> _good_ it does to have the backend non-OS, given the possible harms it  
> can do.

I don't think it's a matter of "good" vs. a matter of "reality".

There are two driving factors here:

1. Walter is, for better or worse, the benevolent dictator for D.  And he
has history/familiarity with this backend.
2. Walter does not want to "taint" his knowledge of compilers with some
other backend that would potentially harm his ability to write
closed-source code for profit.  He is very adamant about this.

I think the only real solution is for someone to write a good backend for
D from scratch, and then assign the appropriate rights to Walter.  I think
if Walter did it himself, it leaves dmd open to lawsuit from the current
copyright holder of the backend, since Walter's knowledge is so
intertwined with that code.

*I* would love to see the reference compiler for D actually written in D
completely, and fully open source.  But I think the current situation is
not very harmful at all -- The compiler is a tool, and one typically
doesn't care about the tool itself vs what it generates.

-Steve