Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 23:33:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Definitely. It is almost always the case that building a 
> program with dmd is much faster than building with gdc or ldc. 
> The tradeoff is that gdc and ldc do a much better job 
> optimizing the resultant binary. So, with dmd, you get fast 
> compilation but a somewhat slower binary, whereas with gdc and 
> ldc, you get slow compilation but a faster binary.
>
> If anyone is seeing dmd compile anything significantly more 
> slowly than gdc or ldc, then dmd has a bug, and it should be 
> reported (though reducing the code to something reportable can 
> be entertaining; fortunately, dustmite can be a big help with 
> that).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

That is very true for regular build, but not especially for 
optimized builds.