Mid-term vision review

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 4 April 2015 at 01:03:14 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 23:59:52 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 23:47:48 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 22:46:31 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 20:56:09 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 19:45:29 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>>>>>> The reliance on GDC/LDC to produce production-level 
>>>>>> binaries(i.e, optimized) and the actual people working on 
>>>>>> them really is worrisome. If Iain or Kai decided one day 
>>>>>> to leave D, it would be a very big blow I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. And considering there is no hope that we bring dmd's 
>>>>> backend up to speed with GCC or LLVM (let's be realistic 
>>>>> one second) what is even more worrisome is how little they 
>>>>> are integrated in the workflow.
>>>>
>>>> The best way to help would probably be to work on 
>>>> contributor guides/documentation. They don't seem to have 
>>>> much of either of these - or I'm blind(good possibility.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even if so what is the point ? That is completely wasted 
>>> work. It is already done elsewhere.
>>>
>>> That is aggravated pathological NIH syndrome right there.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how documentation is NIH 
>> syndrome.
>
> Like always in economy, the question is compared to what ? 
> Writing documentation on that thing, compared to what valuable 
> use of people's time.
>
> Considering there is no hope for this to compete with other 
> backends in term of supported targets, the only reason you'd 
> have to invest in there is NIH syndrome.

I was referring to LDC and/or GDC.