dmd 2.068, 2.069, 2.0xx Evil Plan going forward

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 21:25:22 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
> 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.

because versions are released with GDC and LDC lagging 2-3 
versions behind, when DMD is unusable for production quality 
codegen.

2.068 is almost out and GDC and LDC both only support 2.066. 
Until D decides to adopt either GDC or LDC as a real backend, 
this will never be fixed.