Self-hosting D compiler -- Coming Real Soon Now(tm)

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 11 September 2014 11:13, ketmar via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:54:08 +0200
> Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> What? I don't see any problem with binary blob. With gcc it is same I
>> need binary blob to be able to compile gcc from source. And if I am
>> really scary of binary dmd compiler I can still use last C++ version
>> and compile it with gcc, then use this product to compile next ddmd
>> and so on.
> as i said -- good luck with it. D is not GCC (yet?), and GDC is not a
> part of GCC. it's very naive to assume that FOSS programmer that wants
> to try D will take last C++ version, then compiles it, than compiles
> next D version and so on. he will take either gdc from distro repo (and
> this will be old, if not ancient) just to find that it has no shiny new
> features the programmer just read about in NG, or will try to build
> HEAD and... and drop D, 'cause "if they make it so hard to build their
> compiler, they can play with it without me".
>

Two ways of looking at it, this is a problem if:

1) A distribution doesn't ship gdc already (ie: opensuse, fedora)
2) A developer building gdc doesn't have a D compiler available.

As for binary blob, well, gcc had to start from somewhere, and was
originally too built by a closed source binary blob.

If you are concerned, enable bootstrapping, that will give you an
ethically clean compiler.

> inability to be built with GCC out-of-the-box pushing D into
> marginality. and inability to use new shiny compiler features 'cause
> compiler should be buildable with previous versions too. and this will
> effectively kill language progress:
>

Just because the compiler is not implemented with shiny new features,
does not stop progress of implementing shiny new features.

Iain.