Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 15:49 -0800, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
> 
> Anyone who wants to use ldc can use ldc. It doesn't need to be the
> reference
> compiler for that. And unlike gdc, it's actually pretty close to dmd.
> So,
> there should be no problem with folks using ldc for production right
> now if
> they want to.

Strikes me that the really obvious thing to say is that DMD is the
playground where whoever wants to can play with and progress the D
front end in the knowledge that no-one is going to use DMD in
production. People use LDC in production because it is the right thing
to do: stable proven front end, stable proven backend, and yet up to
date.

What is not to like here? What is the problem here?

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20161223/e2cb90f3/attachment-0001.sig>