Head Const

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 12:03:48 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
> familiar with implementation details and even don't seem to 
> have any experience in writting large programs in D, because

Of course I don't. My goal for D is that it becomes a solid base 
language which it makes sense to build upon. My D programming is 
currently only language related experiments on a rather low level 
(syntax and basic functionality), I have used D for other things 
in the past, but currently it does not stack up against Python or 
C++ for production in my case.

It would be nice if it did, of course.


> Otherwise no one will find practical real-world benefits from 
> your theoretical ideas and we would just waste time arguing 
> with each other, while something practical could be 
> accomplished in the same time.

The foundation has to be solid. Clang went against common wisdom 
when compiling directly to a low level IR without. Common wisdom 
is to compile to a high level IR first. In the case of C++ it has 
worked out ok for clang. That does not mean that there are no 
benefits to using a high level IR. GCC has a higher level IR at 
the top level, and I suspect they have benefitted from that on 
some optimizations.

> would bring objective benefits. Otherwise you sound like 
> someone telling a car manufacturer that they should be focusing 
> on flying cars or teleportation, because clearly that's the 
> future :D

No, it is more like discussing the chassis rather than the 
polish. Car manufacturers can design many models over the same 
chassis, if they put extra effort into it.