Which patches/mods exists for current versions of the DMD parser?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 18:53:34 UTC, monarch_dodra 
wrote:
> For instance, I can't stop Ketmar from bitching about the 
> "problems" with D, and how his solutions are our godsend, but I 
> can decide that he is also an entitled prick who's not even 
> worth taking the time writing off.

Nah, it's just his way of being funny.  You just don't share his 
humour. :) Please also remember that newbies that are excited are 
noisy. They want to find other people with the same outlook and 
don't know the "unwritten rules" yet.

Hot tip. If you want to grow bigger, always be nice to n00bz and 
give them enough time to find their spot. N00bs are alwasy noisy 
in the start, and if other n00bs see that you treat one n00b 
badly they might choose to remain in lurking mode. Appreciate all 
the n00bs you get, it is good marketing.

I am a lot more annoyed by D team members calling themselves 
lieutenants. I suppose this is someone's bad humour too. As a 
former airforce soldier (compulsory service) I just think "ewwwww 
*PUKE*" when I see the term being used… The army is the worst 
possible role model for software development IMO, it sucks! (It 
deprives you of initiative and individuality. You're just a wheel 
in a big machine.)

> and how you are presenting it. The way Ola presented his work 
> looked more like experiment and proof of concept. It's 
> constructive. The changes (mostly) adhered to D's current 
> philosophy. I think he was just trying to find out who was 
> doing the same, and I have no trouble with it.

I am trying to find out if there are maintained patches so I can 
avoid doing stuff that has been done already in my own 
experiments. Time's precious to everyone, even dissidents!

> However, gratuitous (and deliberate) forking of the language 
> just to address your own petty design issues I have more 
> problems with. Sure you can do it, but I think that if you do, 
> you should GTFO.

Wouldn't that depend on how and why you do it?

If I (against all odds) end up with something I think works 
better than the current state, and the mainline does not want it. 
Why would I want to throw it in the garbage bin? Surely the 
better approach would be to share it and gather feedback on it 
from others, then improve it for those that want the improvements 
(if significant and worthwhile).

If I (against all odds) should conclude that I can spend 30% of 
my work time on adding and removing features that makes using a D 
derivative in a commercial setting possible (like for cloud 
computing) then I think that would be a good thing, even if it 
implies forking a closed source version of D. D would still 
receive bug fixes.

The alternative is to spend that 30% on Go and then Go will 
receive the bug fixes... (if it is buggy).

Go is currently a better server platform, but I like the basics 
of D better. I'd like to see D take the Go spot. I don't think 
that will happen with the current D focus, because the D 
development spreads itself thin over a wide range of application 
areas.

How can D compete with Go without a fork? I dunno. I am not ready 
to fork D, but if commercially viable, why not?  Please note that 
I don't think this is viable at the moment. I just want to know 
why you would oppose it.

Cheers,
Ola.