Daily downloads in decline

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:54:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a 
> number of people have been clamoring for more focus on 
> high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of 
> them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches 
> so far. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, 
> especially given that the same people are quick to mention the 
> importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, 
> or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a 
> viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter 
> case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that 
> this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming 
> level of delusional double-think.

I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just 
users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of 
those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good 
complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for 
people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that 
the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help.