Subject

[Exil]

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 00:27:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/7/2019 9:17 AM, Exil wrote:
>> Right DMC is all but dead,
>
> Mainly because I stopped working on it to do D full time.
>
> Although I remain the only person to have implemented a 
> soup-to-nuts C++ compiler, simultaneously doing two languages 
> proved beyond me :-)
>
> Just to be clear, without the DMC++ back end, D would never 
> have happened. For example, Windows 64 support became critical 
> a few years ago. GDC and LDC were quite inadequate on it 
> (they've since improved greatly) and we would have been 
> severely negatively impacted if I hadn't upgraded the backend 
> for Win64.
>
> It's a great strength of D that we have 3 well-supported 
> compilers, DMD, LDC and GDC.

That's simply because of the backend you chose, and ultimately it 
is the limiting factor now. LDC originally attempted to just 
implement their own frontend. Now it is basically what DMD should 
have been. I don't ever expect DMD to get ARM support, or cross 
compiling capability. The amount of work needed just isn't worth 
it, especially when there's a project that takes care of that for 
you. It seems like the decision is based on some kind of ego 
thing (as seems to keep being demonstrated) rather than a 
rational process.

So why continue to use an old dead project in your current active 
project?