Are there any default dmd optimizations

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/26/13 4:23 PM, foobar wrote:
> I don't get what fault you find in the binary NOT operation.
> Regardless, my post wasn't really about specific features, (Walter
> actually mentioned those) but rather about the general design philosophy
> of D which I find lacking. Yes, it is obviously true that Rust has it
> own share of faults, The difference is what *principals* they use to
> address those faults and evolve the language.
> Rust is written in Rust, thus the developers themselves feel all the
> shortcomings, they also listen to their users and they strive to find
> the best way to express the semantics they want in the possibly simplest
> yet readable syntax possible. They think positive and build on their
> vision, whereas D thinks negatively based on C++'s vision.
> D exists for more than a decade and all it provides is slightly less
> hackish C++.
> At first, I dismissed Rust for having poor syntax ("ret" really? Are we
> back to assembly?) but lo and behold, in a very short time they
> considerably improved the syntax. D still argues about the exact same
> issues from several years ago, as if it's stuck in a time loop. This to
> me shows a lack of direction. I expected thing to improve lately with
> all those newly minted release process discussions and such, but alas
> the attitude hasn't shifted at all.

I understand how you see it, and honestly could see it from a mile. When 
a post (a) cherry-picks all negatives and (b) has a final tone that 
mentions no possible solution - it's a foregone conclusion that no 
amount of explaining, amending, arguing, etc. will improve the poster's 
outlook.

I could say e.g. "Well I think things have changed, and look we've 
turned the bug trend curve (http://goo.gl/kf4ZC) which is unprecedented, 
fixed some incomplete features, break new records on bug fixes with each 
release, and have a big conference coming." - to which I have no doubt 
it's possible to concoct a negative answer.

So I understand you have a negative outlook on D. That's entirely fine, 
as is mentioning it on the forum. The only thing I'd like you to 
understand and appreciate is that we who work on D are doing our best to 
find solutions to the various problems in front of us, and in quite a 
literal sense we don't know how to do any better. The constructive thing 
I'm getting out of this is that we could use some more radicalization - 
try things that push stronger against our comfort zone. I have a few in 
mind but it's too early to discuss them publicly.


Andrei