Official compiler

[Márcio Martins via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 13:23:34 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

> Which of these advantages cannot be taken advantage of today?
>

I suppose if you combine the feature sets of all compilers you 
will to some degree be able to get the best of all worlds. But 
the compiler *representing* the language in the wild, in 
benchmarks could be one with an offering that fits the largest 
amount of potential users, and the least possible friction 
towards the adoption, could it not?
Is it optimal that the compiler labelled *official* offers the 
least "advantages" of all?

There is "Strong optimization" under LDC and GDC in the downloads 
page, however, we still see people downloading DMD and 
benchmarking with it, don't we? Yes, people don't read a lot on 
the web, as soon as they see "official" most people pick that and 
stop reading.

> Walter does most of the feature implementation work. Having a 
> familiar back-to-back codebase is a big asset. Compilation 
> speed is a big asset, too, probably not as big.
>

I agree, but I don't see why this would have to change. It 
shouldn't change. Frontend development could happen on DMD as the 
*reference* compiler.

> A step everybody would agree is good would be to make it easy 
> for the three compilers to stay in sync.
>

That would be the cherry on top.