Optlink is on github

[Brad Roberts]

On 3/7/2013 7:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/7/2013 7:27 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:khblbe$27f5$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> On 3/7/2013 7:09 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>> That's correct. However, it'll be much more maintainable,
>>
>> I don't know how much redesign you're planning, but I can't imagine it ever
>> being as maintainable as a pure d codebase.  A less stable/complete linker
>> that attracts more contributors should overtake a more stable linker with
>> only a couple of developers that grok it.
> 
> That's true, but we don't have that other linker yet.
> 
> The other thing is, we just don't have a need for our own linker for any platform other than win32. So what's the cost
> benefit moving forward? I think it's easier to just fix optlink's bugs.
> 
> I don't want to discourage people from trying to come up with a replacement linker for win32 written in D. I think that
> is a great project. But while a linker is a conceptually simple program, the awful file formats involved make it
> unnecessarily difficult and there are simply a lot of details and other things one has to do.
> 
> Like I said before, it'll take a sustained and determined effort to come up with a viable replacement for optlink.

Personally, even though I don't use win32, I believe that moving it over to use the VS toolchain and runtime is the
right path forward.