DDMD and such.

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Gor Gyolchanyan" <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.246.1317215375.26225.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>I know, this has been discussed earlier, but i don't quite understand
> the real reason why isn't DMD's front-end being written in D.
> Existing DDMD is pointless (and i think abandoned), because it's just
> a plain rewrite with the same C-style constructs and completely
> rewriting it to be a correct D code would mean being unable to get the
> bug-fixes on DMD.
> I remember, that Walter said about the problems with compatibility
> with the back-end, that would arise.
> But isn't D supposed to be binary compatible with C?
> AFAIK the only extra thing to be done would be to provide a C facade
> around the D front-end, that would be given to the back-end.
> Why not?

FWIW, There's isn't a very strong separation between the frontend and 
backend. A lot of the backend functions are in the same AST classes that 
also have a lot of front-end stuff. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that 
could be difficult to have classes that are partially implemented in C++ and 
partially in D.

And since people seem to be getting by with the C++-based source, I'm sure 
there's lots of more important priorities.