Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 2016-12-24 at 03:44 +1300, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
> 
> Except dmd's backend is far more well proven then LLVM is.

Come now that is obfuscation – you need to make good on this claim.

The LLVM backend has many, many more users than the DMD backend and the
LLVM backend is used with many more different languages than the DMD
backend. The LLVM backend is proven far more than the DMD backend
simply on the basis of statistical likelihood.

I'll back LLVM any day in this argument.
 
> So that argument needs to be tweaked a little bit.

No it doesn't, it stands as stated.

-- 
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/20161223/38a1fdc8/attachment.sig>