On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 22:07:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 5 Jun 2015 20:55, "Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
At the risk of speaking with lack of foresight, are you on the gcc mailingdlang.org, the DM backend and related toolchain should be phased out
On 29/05/2015 19:35, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
>This isn't the first time I've seen this, in basically >every benchmark
>featuring D I have to submit a patch/make a comment that >dmd shouldn't
>be used. Make no mistake, this is damaging to D's >reputation - how
>well does D's "native efficiency" go over when people are >saying it's
>slower than Scala and F#(mono)?
>
>LDC and GDC need promoted more.
[...]
This will probably offend some people, but I think LDC/GDC should be the
default download on dlang.org, and dmd should be provided as an
alternative for those who want the latest language version and don't
mind the speed compromise.
It should be more than just LDC/GDC being the default download on
altogether in favor of LLVM.
today's internet and FOSS online-collaborative era, how can the Digital
Walter might have written great compiler tools in the 90s or so, but in
Mars toolchain hope to compete with toolchains having teams of multiple
full-time developers working on it? (plus a plethora of occasional
volunteer contributors). The difference in manpower and resources is
astonishing! And it's only gonna get bigger since LLVM is having more and
more people and companies supporting it. By this rate, it may well one day
make even GCC old and obsolete, left to be used by FSF zealots only.
list too? If not, get on it. Otherwise you will enter this kind of
polarised view of X will dominate all.
Slightly off topic, but I recently started digging into GDC( on your personal fork, anyways.) I find the code pleasantly easy to navigate and understand. I don't think I've given gdc its due credit in this thead.
Bye,