Official compiler

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/26/2016 1:47 AM, Radu wrote:
> Please don't get me wrong, we all apreciate what you offered to the D community,
> but all these legal arguments are strongly tied to you, and less so to the
> community.

Didn't Google get hung out to dry over 6 lines of Java code or something like 
that? And I don't know how long you've been around here, but we DID have 
precisely these sorts of problems during the Phobos/Tango rift. Ignoring 
licensing issues can have ugly consequences.


> Your LLVM license nit pick is hilarious, you can't do that when the "oficial" D
> compiler has a non-liberal licensed backend, you just can't.

That's not under my control, and is one of the reasons why D gravitated towards 
the Boost license for everything we could.


> But setting things aside, we all need to acknowledge that the current setup is
> not fair to motivated and proven third party compilers, their contributors, and
> their users.

I don't see anything unfair. gdc, ldc, and dmd are each as good as their 
respective teams make them.


> The D ecosistem must create and foster a friendly environment to anyone wanting
> to have a good compiler that is current with the language/runtime/phobos
> developments.

And that's what we do. It's why we have 3 major compilers.