Official compiler

[Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 at 22:57:20 UTC, Márcio Martins 
wrote:
> I was reading the other thread "Speed kills" and was wondering 
> if there is any practical reason why DMD is the official 
> compiler?
>
> Currently, newcomers come expecting their algorithm from 
> rosetta code to run faster in D than their current language, 
> but then it seems like it's actually slower. What gives?
>
> Very often the typical answer from this community is generally 
> "did you use LDC/GDC?".
>
> Wouldn't it be a better newcomer experience if the official 
> compiler was either LDC or GDC?
> For us current users it really doesn't matter what is labelled 
> official, we pick what serves us best, but for a newcomer, the 
> word official surely carries a lot of weight, doesn't it?
>
> From a marketing point of view, is it better for D as a 
> language that first-timers try the bleeding-edge, latest 
> language features with DMD, or that their expectations of 
> efficient native code are not broken?
>
> Apologies if this has been discussed before...

Hi,

even if DMD is the official reference compiler, the download page 
http://dlang.org/download.html already mentions "strong 
optimization" as pro of GDC/LDC vs. "very fast compilation 
speeds" as pro of DMD.

If we would make GDC or LDC the official compiler then the next 
question which pops up is about compilation speed....

Regards,
Kai