Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[Ilya Yaroshenko via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 23 December 2016 at 14:44:41 UTC, rikki cattermole 
wrote:
> 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.

It is not true for Mir projects,  sometimes ICE occurs without 
any description while LDC just works. --Ilya

Bug report for ICEs requires to much efforts because code size 
should be reduced.