One more question - an untapped audience.

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 19/02/2014 16:03, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros"  wrote in message news:le2i5p$28g5$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
>> [snip]
>
> I know that a lot of work needs to be done before the frontend is ready
> to be efficiently used as a library, but that doesn't make it impossible.
>
>> But anyways, those are secondary points actually. What I think is
>> really crucial, is that we don't have a main-stream compiler in D.
>> When DMD gets ported to D, and the main development of DMD happens
>> there, in the D version, then I'll believe a reasonable
>> compiler-as-library could happen.
>
> I think you may have missed something!  This is coming in the near future.
>
>
> I have been working on automatically converting the DMD fronted to D
> since dconf (and before).  I've produced working compilers on win32,
> linux32, and linux64, with the other platforms currently lacking only
> because I don't have a box set up for them.
>
> The only outstanding work for dmd is fixing layout and
> commenting/formatting issues in the generated source, which I am slowly
> getting through.
>
> I expect any issues encountered with the other platforms to be minor,
> and hopefully switching gdc and ldc will be fairly painless too.
>
> I'm hoping 2.066 will be the first D-based dmd release and work on the
> C++ source will cease immediately after that.

I'm glad to hear that, that sounds very promising. Especially since 
dogfooding the compiler has great importance that goes beyond just the 
compiler-as-a-library goal.

I think DMD will get there eventually, but... you think it will come as 
soon as the DMD 2.066 release already?? As in, the official DMD, not a 
fork. Walter and Andrei have said they are on board with that?

Also, Ian raises a good point, what will happen to GDC and LDC once that 
switch happens? They are both very important projects to be left hanging 
in the rain.
-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros