Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[hardreset via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 18:33:52 UTC, Brad Anderson 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:41:56 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:30:15 UTC, bachmeier 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 23:08:28 UTC, Andrei 
>>>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> Hello, a few engineers at Red Hat are taking a look at 
>>>>> using the D language on the desktop and have reached out to 
>>>>> us. They have created a list of issues. We are on the 
>>>>> top-level ones, and of course would appreciate any 
>>>>> community help as well.
>>>>
>>>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the 
>>>> roadmap?
>>>
>>> What does it mean to "move" to LDC? Why can't you use LDC now?
>>
>> Moving the reference compiler to LLVM as was suggested in the 
>> list.
>
> I've never been able to understand why it matters.

Cause people think LDC is better and it would be a big win if 
everyone focused just on that. It's not about which has "official 
compiler" slapped on it, it's about where the development effort 
is focused.

That said I dont care really, I was just curious what the 
solution was to the closed source back end was.