Why do you write D2 compiler using C++ language?

[ddj via Digitalmars-d]

Replacing unsupported D1 with unfinished D2 does not seem to me 
like good idea for language.

I like D, and I wish to learn it and use it.

But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.

High activity in the project to me does not look like sign of 
good support, more like unstable and buggy implementation. Maybe 
problem is in implementation language you want to replace? I 
guess, best test for language is compiler bootstrapping. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29

IMHO, if you want million of users, at least no new feature 
should be added before number of issues and bug fixes stabilize 
to about one per month

Thanks

On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:27:01 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:38:47 +0000
> ddj via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> You already have better D1.
> as D2 wasn't created from the scratch, it was easier to reuse 
> already
> written c++ code. there is no big difference in having D2 
> compiler
> written in c++ or in D1, both of them are not D2. DMD c++ is 
> very close
> to "restricted c with classes" with banned STL, templates, 
> multiple
> inheritance and so on. so it doesn't really matters.
>
> besides, having it written in D1 means that D1 compiler must be
> supported all this time, making devs effectively support TWO D 
> versions
> instead of one. and by using c++ devs can "outsource" c++ 
> support to
> another teams. ;-)