Top 5

[Aarti_pl]

Bill Baxter pisze:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter:
>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>
> 
> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
> 
> --bb

I think the same.

And similar think can happen in nearest future also. LDC (was LLVMDC) is 
approaching release quality very fast. Who will use DMD then, while you 
will have better compiler with more bugs fixed than in DMD, better 
linker and optimizer and more open people working currently on LDC?

This is for D core team to rethink how to cooperate with LDC team, so 
that community can get best from resources we have. Maintaining obsolete 
back-end by Walter will be loose-loose situation for everyone.

It might sound like contradiction but it seems that more openness gives 
more control finally.

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)