tooling quality and some random rant

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

Paulo Pinto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> still you don't convice me.
> 
> So what language features has C that are missing from D and prevent a
> linker to be written in
> D?
> 
> The issue is not if I can beat Walter, the issue is that we have a
> language which on its official
> home page states lots of reasons for using it instead of C and C++, and
> its creator decides
> to use C when porting the linker to an high level language.
> 
> So doesn't Walter belive in its own language?

>From Walter himself:

"Why use C instead of the D programming language? Certainly, D is usable for 
such low level coding and, when programming at this level, there isn't a 
practical difference between the two. The problem is that the system to 
build Optlink uses some old tools that only work with an old version of the 
object file format. The D compiler uses newer obj format features, the C 
compiler still uses the old ones. It was just easier to use the C compiler 
rather than modify the D one. Once the source is all in C, it will be 
trivial to shift it over to D and the modern tools." 

http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2009/11/assembler_to_c.html