Daily downloads in decline

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/06/2015 4:44 p.m., Jack Stouffer wrote:
> 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.

I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to 
mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now 
for me.

Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well 
it's so shinyyyyyy.

I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from 
everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. 
If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for 
teaching it IMO.