On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 19:02:54 UTC, Pierre Krafft wrote:
> My opinion is that it should be addressed as a culture problem and not trying to limit the language. If a macro-system could be added it shouldn't be limited to just phobos code. Instead the community should look down upon over usage of the feature in non-library code.

If you rely on people using good practice you are doomed. The only way to get people to do the "right thing©" is to make that right thing way easier than the wrong thing.

On 05/04/2015 00:33, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/4/2015 1:59 PM, weaselcat wrote:
>> proprietary license hindering contributions and distribution, performs
>> worse
>> across the board against GDC/LDC in terms of optimized binaries, lack of
>> manpower in comparison to LLVM/GCC that have massive corporation and
>> educational
>> backing.
>
> Massive manpower doesn't do much good when doing tricky things like
> getting the optimizer to work well. An optimizer/code generator can be
> kept all in one head at the same time.
>
> MM pays off when you've got a galaxy of tools to be developed that are a
> bit independent of each other.

"MM pays off when you've got a galaxy of tools to be developed that are a bit independent of each other."

Exactly, and that's why LLVM/GCC are poised to have a lot more quality than DMD/DMC (if they don't already). Because in the D world there is also a variety of tools and development aspects to be worked upon: optimizer/code generator; frontend; debugging support; profiler; website and community admin; etc,

LLVM/GCC can have (at least) one person working full-time for *each* of these aspects, whereas in the D world - at least for backend stuff like the optimizer/code generator - it's mainly just you Walter. But you working part-time on one such aspect, you can't possibly hope to match the quality of a dedicated multi-person team such as what LLVM/GCC have.



-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros