Plan for D
Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad at gmail.com
Wed May 19 13:07:26 UTC 2021
On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 12:30:18 UTC, zjh wrote:
> We'll just improve it on `d`.
> `D author` has been focusing on action rather than management.
> OK, let's do it ourselves.
> `We can start with the details of where we feel uncomfortable`.
> If we don't act, and wait for `d author` to lead us or give us
> directions. Maybe it will be `a long time`.
Yes, that is also what I fear when I see new big features being
added.
> However, we still need to use `d`. Let's start with `small
> details` one by one. Don't wait for them. Let's just do it
> ourselves.
I think I can fix most of the small details that bugs me the
most, myself, but not the larger issues such as memory
management. At some point it becomes easier to switch focus to
something like Feeble's CX language or design your own from
scratch. So, if CX is being developed into something interesting
and D does not get proper memory management, that is a more
likely option I think.
Anyway, as I pointed out, forking DMD is not so difficult, but
the main issue with it is that the DMD source code should be
split into smaller files. Then one can "overwrite" files that has
not changed when DMD is updated with new versions, and manually
modify (or patch up) the DMD files that has changed. Maybe it is
easy to do this with the large source files DMD has for someone
that does this all the time, but I have no intent of being an
expert on merging... (rebasing). So at it stands, DMD needs
restructuring before I want to do big changes to it.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list