Red Hat's issues in considering the D language

[Ilya Yaroshenko via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 18:33:52 UTC, Brad Anderson 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:41:56 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:30:15 UTC, bachmeier 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 10:15:26 UTC, hardreset 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 23:08:28 UTC, Andrei 
>>>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Is moving to LLVM backend or LDC something that is on the 
>>>> roadmap?
>>>
>>> What does it mean to "move" to LDC? Why can't you use LDC now?
>>
>> Moving the reference compiler to LLVM as was suggested in the 
>> list.
>
> I've never been able to understand why it matters. You can use 
> LDC or GDC now. Slapping the name "reference compiler" on one 
> of them won't change anything. I think most frontend developers 
> prefer working in the DMD umbrella for speed and simplicity 
> reasons. Editing and building DMD is dead simple.
>
> In theory the backend should be completely divorced from the 
> frontend and people would be editing a libd repo or something 
> and there wouldn't be a need for a reference compiler.

It will simplify development process for DRuntime, LDC and GDC. 
In addition, DMD support for numeric libraries requires more 
efforts and workarounds. DMD is less documented then LLVM (this 
is important for numeric and betterC libraries) --Ilya