> That's the dfront idea, and I like it. It has some nice properties:
>
> 1. It allows dfront to be rewritten in D itself. It can be compiled using
> Walter's compiler, and the generated C source can be compiled on another
> platform.
> 2. dfront boldly goes where GCC has never gone before, thereby maximizing
> portability.
> 3. The front-end part can be integrated into GCC without the C++ concerns.
>
> Rewriting the front-end in D is not necessary, but it will seriously test the language, and - if succesful - be a valuable prof of concept.

Well, that would be an other project.

Currently we are working on a GLUE layer between the D-front-end and the GCC-back-end.

Jan

I regard this as a chicken and the egg kinda thing.  We need a cross platform D compiler before we can write a front end in D.  And if we wanted to write the cross platform D compiler, we'd need a D front end.

So from my perspective the long term goal should be as follows:

1. Attach the existing C++ front end to GCC via glue code
2. Make it work nice and get people interested in using it
3. If Walter is up for it (which he said he's interested in the idea), create a D front end in D and adapt said GCC glue code.
4. Create a bootstrapping process that allows one to compile gcc + D with either the existing version or a previous version (the C++ version)

The same arguments against rewriting the D front-end in C currently apply to re-writing it in D.  Meaning we should only do so once walter is ready to convert to a D front end to avoid having divergent front ends.

Personally, my interest is in getting a cross-platform D compiler.  I'll be working hard with others to achieve this goal.  While I'd enjoy it if we had a written-in-D version, its not something I'd likely donate much of my own time for, but would gladly help others.

Once we have a cross-platform D compiler, my main interest will be in creating a rich API.  Creating libraries that make it easy to port legacy Java code to D, etc.

Or at least thats my thinking.

-Andy


Jan Knepper wrote:
>>That's the dfront idea, and I like it. It has some nice properties:
>>
>>1. It allows dfront to be rewritten in D itself. It can be compiled using
>>Walter's compiler, and the generated C source can be compiled on another
>>platform.
>>2. dfront boldly goes where GCC has never gone before, thereby maximizing
>>portability.
>>3. The front-end part can be integrated into GCC without the C++ concerns.
>>
>>Rewriting the front-end in D is not necessary, but it will seriously test
>>the language, and - if succesful - be a valuable prof of concept.
> 
> 
> Well, that would be an other project.
> 
> Currently we are working on a GLUE layer between the D-front-end and the
> GCC-back-end.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 

andy wrote:

> I regard this as a chicken and the egg kinda thing.  We need a cross platform D compiler before we can write a front end in D.  And if we wanted to write the cross platform D compiler, we'd need a D front end.

<g>

> So from my perspective the long term goal should be as follows:
>
> 1. Attach the existing C++ front end to GCC via glue code
> 2. Make it work nice and get people interested in using it
> 3. If Walter is up for it (which he said he's interested in the idea), create
> a D front end in D and adapt said GCC glue code.

I am very PRO leaving "3" up to Walter as the whole idea of the GLUE layer is
not to touch the current D front-end (written in C++) nor touch the GCC back-end
(written in C)

> 4. Create a bootstrapping process that allows one to compile gcc + D with either the existing version or a previous version (the C++ version)

Let's wait for "3" first on that one! <g>

> The same arguments against rewriting the D front-end in C currently apply to re-writing it in D.  Meaning we should only do so once walter is ready to convert to a D front end to avoid having divergent front ends.

Certainly! Agreed!

> Personally, my interest is in getting a cross-platform D compiler.  I'll be working hard with others to achieve this goal.  While I'd enjoy it if we had a written-in-D version, its not something I'd likely donate much of my own time for, but would gladly help others.

Neither would I.
I think writing the D-front-end is Walter's thing to do.

> Once we have a cross-platform D compiler, my main interest will be in creating a rich API.  Creating libraries that make it easy to port legacy Java code to D, etc.

> Or at least thats my thinking.

Makes sense...

Jan