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