dmd 2.068, 2.069, 2.0xx Evil Plan going forward

[ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 20:53:09 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
> DMD is a problem for all the D ecosystem.
> It supports only x86, has a proprietary backend license, 
> generates very, very slow and ugly code.
>
> Only one feature : it's faster than ldc for example and it's 
> only because 1.5 humans want to optimize ldc.
>
> DMD should be dropped in favor of ldc.

By your logic we should also drop support for Windows, since 
currently only DMD supports Windows well. It would be really 
stupid to focus on only one backend. Being backend agnostic is a 
far better objective. Why should anyone be tied to using _only_ 
LLVM? For example, AFAIK, GDC has far superior support for 
embedded platforms. Also having a reference implementation 
_different_ from GDC and LDC has advantages on its own.
DMD's backend isn't holding back GDC or LDC in any way. Nowadays 
there are quite few changes in that area so DMD's backend isn't 
stealing manpower that would otherwise go to LDC or GDC. 
Surprisingly, in the last few months I have the impression that 
DMD has far less codegen bugs than LDC and GDC, though I maybe 
wrong.