Official compiler

[karabuta via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 06:57:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
>> 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....
>
> Yeah. dmd's compilation speed has been a huge win for us and 
> tends to make a very good first impression. And as far as 
> development goes, fast compilation speed matters a lot more 
> than fast binaries. So, assuming that they're compatible enough 
> (which ideally they are but aren't always), I would argue that 
> the best approach would be to use dmd to develop your code and 
> then use gdc or ldc to build the production binary. We benefit 
> by having all of these compilers, and I seriously question that 
> changing which one is the "official" one is going to help any. 
> It just shifts which set of complaints we get.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yep. Fast compilation during development must not be sacrificed 
for fast binaries. What are you really building to have fast 
binaries during development?

However, I strongly agree with cleaning up the language instead 
of adding more features.