Required DMD changes for Mir and few thoughts about D future

[Temtaime via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 08:40:38 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 01:17:16 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 9/27/16 2:52 AM, Joakim wrote:
>>> Why not?  I think people will understand that ldc is meant 
>>> for higher
>>> performance, which you want from such code anyway.
>>
>> I'm not going to argue this much further. Essentially Mir is 
>> touted as a highly generic and portable library. Having it 
>> only work on one language implementation works against that 
>> statement, the credibility of Mir, and the credibility of D as 
>> an universal platform for creating fast code.
>
> Just let dmd die.

This so-called "reference implementation" makes people suffer 
because of code portability and another differences between the 
compilers (e.g. compiler building, compiler's command line 
arguments, compiler's extensions).