D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[Ernesto Castellotti]

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 20:55:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> DMD is Walter's baby, and he'll probably let it go only over 
> his dead body. :-D

Of course, in fact I was referring to a utopian situation ;-D

> To be fair, though, for all its flaws DMD has one upside: 
> super-fast compile speed, which is valuable during development 
> because the shorter your code-compile-test cycle is, the more 
> productive you are.

Yes that's true, however I don't see all this difference compared 
to GDC or LDC. For me it's not enough to concentrate the time in 
the development of DMD, killing DMD I think it's wrong but I if I 
was in the utopian situation of being able to decide anything 
about D I would keep it exclusively as a best effort side project

> For final builds of almost anything (except shell-script 
> replacements where codegen quality is irrelevant), I wouldn't 
> touch DMD with a 10-foot pole. Its codegen quality is just too 
> low, esp. when it comes to performance of the resulting 
> executable. Over the years I've consistently gotten 30-40% 
> speed improvements with LDC over DMD, sometimes even 50%.  LDC 
> is my go-to compiler for serious work.  Once in a while I use 
> gdc and find that it has comparable codegen quality to LDC.
>
>
> T

True, LDC is really good.
GDC starting from GCC 12 version started to get really 
interesting (so much so that now I've replaced LDC with GDC in 
production because it's much easier for me to handle for my 
embedded programming) because it is updated to recent D versions.
I believe that no one can ever reward enough Iain Buclaw for the 
great work he did with GDC, having a D compiler on GCC mainline 
is just amazing.