why and how D can solve the next software crisis (was Re: Negative)

[Anders F Björklund]

Kevin Bealer wrote:

>>I just don't see why GDC would have to be bundled with the rest of
>>the GNU Compiler Collection in order for it to be used everywhere ?
[...]
> There is no technical reason.  But go to your boss and tell him you want to use
> a new language.  He'll be sceptical...  Now tell him you need to build your own
> patched version GCC to get a compiler for it...

But one can still build binary packages for it (GDC), without it first 
being a FSF project ? The only caveat being that if your system compiler 
is too far away from what GDC works with, you'll need *another* GCC too.
(which could still be offered as an alternative installation, though...)

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. Just wonder why it has to be.
I'd worry more about the language spec not being open, or even finished.

[...]
> It may never have bytecode, but users don't actually care about that if
> compile/link is fast -- which seems to be true for dmd but not necessarily gdc.
> The dmd compile feels faster than just starting the Java interpreter.  I haven't
> benchmarked it though.

Part of this speed comes from optlink, I think ? (when it doesn't crash)
At least I've found the GCC linking to be slower, doubly so for C++...

--anders