Daily downloads in decline

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/1/15 6:43 PM, weaselcat wrote:
> On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:21:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> 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.
>
> dmd's speed is fast only in comparison with C++ compilers, go runs
> circles around it.

You are right! go spits out an error that my D code isn't compilable in 
much faster time than dmd can compile it.

> it seems like it would be easier to fix LDC's compiling speed than make
> a 20-year old ex-C++ backend be able to compete with LLVM/GCC's codegen.
>
> or else LDC and GDC are going to forever lag behind dmd due to a lack of
> manpower, so you have to pick between being able to have relevant
> bugfixes, new features, etc from the past ~12-18, or having code that
> runs faster than C# on mono.
>
> The way everyone says "just develop with dmd, then use LDC/GDC for
> speed!" is ridiculous considering I frequently have to alter my code to
> even work with LDC/GDC.

This I agree with. Daniel mentioned at dconf that he would like to merge 
the front-ends, so the issues between compilers would be much easier to 
solve.

-Steve