Blocking points for further D adoption

[Puming via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 00:08:51 UTC, dalailambda wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 23:48:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DMD *is* the official compiler. That's what a reference 
>> compiler is. The other compilers are there for those who want 
>> them and are developed independently of DMD. It's no different 
>> from the situation with Java (with the exception that Oracle 
>> doesn't link to other compilers on their JDK download page). 
>> No one says you *have* to use LDC or GDC for production, or 
>> that you can't use DMD. It's just as a recommendation for 
>> those who care about squeezing out every last drop of 
>> performance.
>
> Sure, but overwhelmingly the community suggests to use DMD for 
> development for fast compilation speeds and then use LDC/GDC 
> for production. I'm not saying that the law mandates it but the 
> impression I get as a newcommer to the community is that DMD is 
> the ugly stepchild that isn't suitable for real world use case.
>
> As an example, look at whenever a benchmark comes up, someone 
> will say "have you tried compiling with LDC?". I feel the is 
> relevant since, as a systems language, performance should be a 
> feature.

It's been suggested that DMD/LDC/GDC could be combined into a 
bundle, say DCC, and when you call

DCC hello.d

it will call dmd hello.d,

and if you call

DCC -fast hello.d

it will call ldc hello.d or gdc hello.d

This will give newcomers a different experience.