dmd codegen improvements

[Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 21:51:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> This is the best example of double standards that outside 
> reviewers give about the core D maintainers.

Hogwash.

AFAIK, they complained about the backend, not a lack of 
compilers. When you get fracturing related to code base quality, 
licensing or language semantics, you have development strategy 
issues that cause fracturing (you also have private fors like 
ketmar's).

Besides, different people having different opinions is not double 
standards.

> In any other language, you'd call it freedom of choice (devil's 
> advocate: the fact that there are dozens of C++ compilers has a 
> negative impact on usage and adoption).

Most C++ compilers are dead. If you scaled up C++ to D based on 
resources and usage then C++ should have 100s of free compilers. 
You have 2 free C++14 compilers.

By your argument emacs and xemacs should never have been merged, 
the fact is that they were better off with uniting efforts.