Ready for review: new std.uni
Chad J
chadjoan at __spam.is.bad__gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 22:30:05 PST 2013
On 01/14/2013 12:33 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Monday, 14 January 2013 at 04:42:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'll candidly mention that David's request was unclear to me. It's
>> been winding enough that I missed the key sentence. Was it that we
>> switch dmd to using llvm as backend?
>
> If you want, yes - but not in the form of an actionable proposal yet. I
> was trying to argue that the benefits of using an existing solution like
> GCC or LLVM are large enough (resp. the costs of using a custom backend
> high enough) that we should seriously consider doing so. Especially
> because it looks as if the amount of work needed to keep the DMD backend
> and thus the reference D compiler competitive is going to increase
> further as other backends are gaining things like auto-vectorization to
> light up modern CPUs and ARM is gaining in importance.
>
> David
"gaining" he says ;)
D just missed out on the leading edge of smartphone games. That is a
HUGE market packed with small developers that can easily adopt new
tooling. We got the invite and we stood them up. IMO, sticking to an
x86-centric toolset cost D one of its perfect opportunities for being a
killer tool. That makes me kinda sad.
Sorry for the downer. I bring it up in the hope that we can learn from
it. I like to think that we'll see more opportunities in the future.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list