Daily downloads in decline

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
> at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not 
> being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code 
> being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;)

Given how slow they are at compiling? Not a chance. dmd's speed 
is a huge feature.

What I would recommend (and have heard others recommend) is that 
development normally be done with dmd so that you can get the 
fast compile-test-edit cycle that it enables and then use gdc or 
ldc when you generate production code so that it'll actually then 
be optimized properly. That way, you get fast production binaries 
_and_ fast compilation speed where you need it. But developing 
code with gdc or ldc would just be painful in comparison to 
developing with dmd.

- Jonathan M Davis