Microsoft to contribute to Clang and LLVM project

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 11 December 2015 at 07:40:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how related rdmd is to the above mentioned 
> features. If one would use rdmd for the above, it would require 
> to compile the code as a dynamic library and the load that. I 
> guess that could be possible.

I was really trying to get a handle on what their point was.

rdmd provides an immediacy that is similar to using some 
scripting languages. For me, rdmd is better to use when 
prototyping something than C++, but I'm still more productive 
prototyping something with R or Matlab.

Nevertheless, while I think there is value in an REPL-like 
environment for D, I would also give it a low, low priority.

Some people have said things like D is an AOT compiled language. 
Fine. But imagine you had a scripting language with the exact 
same syntax and semantics as D, but this language can be used 
with an REPL. Maybe there would be a few differences, but for the 
most part a program written in this language could also be 
compiled with dmd.

Consider the relationship between C and Ch. It provides an REPL 
interactive shell for C along with some other changes. While 
there are some differences, you're still basically using an 
interpreted version of C.

Let's suppose there's a Dh that is to D as Ch is to C. Would some 
people find value in Dh? I think yes. Would there be some overlap 
between implementing this hypothetical language and dmd/rdmd? I 
would suspect quite a bit (though I don't know enough of the 
technical details). Would it be possible to use a JIT in the 
implementation? I don't see why not. Should smart people work on 
creating Dh? I'm guessing other priorities are more important.