Official compiler

[Márcio Martins via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 15:36:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 14:23:12 UTC, Márcio Martins 
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And what exactly is the difference between the "official" 
> compiler and the "reference" compiler supposed to be?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

"official" carries a connotation of endorsement doesn't it? In 
other words, if you are given a choice of 3 and you know very 
little about each, which would you predict would give you a 
better user experience?

Reference in this case is the one that most closely follows the 
bleeding edge of the language spec, which new users don't benefit 
a lot from. In this case it's also where all the frontend 
development would happen. But what we call it this doesn't really 
matter to end users.

What I have been defending this far is that we could entertain 
the possibility that end users could be better off if we 
"suggested" they try out one of the other compilers before they 
try DMD. The easiest way to suggest that is to stamp "official" 
on one of the stronger alternatives. Once installers for LDC and 
GDC are on par with DMD, is there still a pragmatic reason to 
suggest DMD to new users? Given that all that DMD has going for 
it from the perspective of a new user is the compilation speed?

For everyone else nothing would change, we'd go about our daily 
lives, using our favorite compiler as always. But meanwhile, 
people exploring and looking to try D could try out it's amazing 
features and get proof in first-hand, that these awesome features 
come at no efficiency cost, as advertised.