D casually mentioned and dismissed + a suggestion

[lobo via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 05:13:55 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> On 12/05/15 21:35, FujiBar wrote:
>
>> Walter would probably violently disagree with the "no decent 
>> development
>> tools" assessment. But I got to say that people used to Visual 
>> Studio
>> and XCode (like myself) not being impressed  by D's 
>> 1980s-style bare
>> basic command line tools is not surprising.
> I don't think the command line aspect of things is justified. 
> With that said, C++ has some really good cross referencing 
> tools (e.g. in eclipse) that D not only does not match, but 
> with CTFE, I do not see how it /can/ match. I actually miss 
> those occasionally.
>
> What bothers me most about D, however, is that the toolchain 
> itself isn't there to pick up its share of the load. 
> Transitioning between versions of the compiler requires a task 
> with several days' worth of work behind it, and getting the 
> code to compile on both dmd and gdc is a full time task for 
> someone here. With DMD's optimizer not worth much, this is a 
> real issue.
>
> And this is before mentioning stability. I've lost count of the 
> number of times my compilation failed with an assert thrown by 
> dmd, and just last week I've had to refactor the code around a 
> consistent segmentation fault by the compiler when trying to 
> compile it. It got better for it, but ideally I'd like to 
> refactor my code because I want to, not because the compiler 
> crashes unless I do so.
>
> Shachar

Interesting. Since >= DMD 2.05x I haven't had any real stability 
problems with each new release.

Each release still breaks my code in some way because each new 
compiler version improves on the last and detects latent bugs in 
my code.

My only concern now with a new release is the compiler's memory 
usage growing.

bye,
lobo