Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Dec 23 06:44:41 PST 2016


On 24/12/2016 3:14 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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?

Except dmd's backend is far more well proven then LLVM is.
So that argument needs to be tweaked a little bit.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list