Blocking points for further D adoption

[dalailambda via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 23:48:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DMD *is* the official compiler. That's what a reference 
> compiler is. The other compilers are there for those who want 
> them and are developed independently of DMD. It's no different 
> from the situation with Java (with the exception that Oracle 
> doesn't link to other compilers on their JDK download page). No 
> one says you *have* to use LDC or GDC for production, or that 
> you can't use DMD. It's just as a recommendation for those who 
> care about squeezing out every last drop of performance.

Sure, but overwhelmingly the community suggests to use DMD for 
development for fast compilation speeds and then use LDC/GDC for 
production. I'm not saying that the law mandates it but the 
impression I get as a newcommer to the community is that DMD is 
the ugly stepchild that isn't suitable for real world use case.

As an example, look at whenever a benchmark comes up, someone 
will say "have you tried compiling with LDC?". I feel the is 
relevant since, as a systems language, performance should be a 
feature.