Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Dec 23 07:59:40 PST 2016


On Friday, December 23, 2016 14:14:41 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?

dmd compiles code faster, which is better from a development standpoint.
Assuming that dmd and ldc are compatible enough, it makes a lot of sense to
do most of the development with dmd and produce the actual product with ldc.
But if someone wants to use ldc for the whole thing because of FOSS concerns
or personal preference or whatever, that's fine too. It's just not what I'd
want to do if I could avoid it. dmd's compilation speed is worth a lot.

- Jonathan M Davis




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list