Microsoft to contribute to Clang and LLVM project

Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Dec 15 12:02:27 PST 2015


On Tuesday, 15 December 2015 at 16:17:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> Unless you articulate what your alternate plan is to make 
> things simpler, perhaps along with some github PRs or a DIP, 
> things will keep going as they are.

I don't think series of DIPs will change anything. First we need 
to be close to consensus on what ought to be done better.

But since Swift has SIL and Rust is getting MIR, I'm starting to 
think that it would be overall less work to build a new language 
adopted to one of those than polishing Nim, Crystal and D... That 
option didn't really exist before, and it won't resonate well 
with D designers either.

But it is a reasonable strategy when languages seem to be 
converging on semantics that are rather similar.

The basic question is: can you afford to compete?

Yes, if you reuse existing infrastructure, not only what exists, 
but what is coming.


> Your asm.js/WebAssembly target is a little different, but using 
> the web for such apps is just as dumb.  There are good reasons 
> why mobile is ascendant and webapps on the downswing.

I don't think there is a downswing for web-apps.


> you can optimize for one niche and do extremely well there, but 
> then you often find yourself stuck in that niche, as Go finds 
> itself today.

Being stuck in Go's niche would be a fantastic situation for D as 
Go's market penetration might be 20x that of D. The main 
limitation for Go is the Go language authors' vision and 
attitudes. Not really related to the domain.


> Which isn't D either, unless you include D because of the GC.

D2 appears to be going for ref counted ownership, so I assume 
that the outcome will be that D2 becomes comparable to Swift with 
ARC.

D2 might have trouble finding a key feature to market after Swift 
adds hygienic macros. Depending on how they go about it.




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list