On Friday, 23 December 2016 at 22:41:28 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:29:15 +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2016-12-24 at 03:44 +1300, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> […]
>>> 
>>> Except dmd's backend is far more well proven then LLVM is.
>> 
>> Come now that is obfuscation – you need to make good on this claim.
>> 
>> The LLVM backend has many, many more users than the DMD backend and the LLVM backend is used with many more different languages than the DMD backend. The LLVM backend is proven far more than the DMD backend simply on the basis of statistical likelihood.
>
> Plus the number of people on hand to fix errors in LLVM outweighs the number available to fix errors in the DigitalMars backend by a factor of several hundred.

Although there is a small delay in that. While we try to remain compilable with LLVM trunk it does tend to break frequently and you then have to use llvm trunk.

On 24/12/2016 7:29 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-12-24 at 03:44 +1300, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> […]
>>
>> Except dmd's backend is far more well proven then LLVM is.
>
> Come now that is obfuscation – you need to make good on this claim.
>
> The LLVM backend has many, many more users than the DMD backend and the
> LLVM backend is used with many more different languages than the DMD
> backend. The LLVM backend is proven far more than the DMD backend
> simply on the basis of statistical likelihood.
>
> I'll back LLVM any day in this argument.
>
>> So that argument needs to be tweaked a little bit.
>
> No it doesn't, it stands as stated.

My entire argument there is from its age.

On Thursday, 22 December 2016 at 08:33:55 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
> ? I am on fedora and I have dmd, so it is not true :P
>
> Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> napsal St, pro 21, 2016 v 6∶36 :
>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:41:56 UTC, hardreset wrote:
>>> 
>>> Moving the reference compiler to LLVM as was suggested in the list.
>> 
>> LDC is the only compiler on Fedora/CentOS anyway!

What I meant is that LDC is the only D compiler in the official Fedora/CentOS repositories.

On Friday, 23 December 2016 at 14:14:41 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Strikes me that the really obvious thing to say is that DMD is the playground where whoever wants to can play with and progress the D front end in the knowledge that no-one is going to use DMD in production. People use LDC in production because it is the right thing to do: stable proven front end, stable proven backend, and yet up to date.
>
> What is not to like here? What is the problem here?

If I need the lastest version for whatever reason, I can't get my LDC build, upgrade it and get it to work. DMD use its own nonsense brew of flags and command line syntax.

If I find a bug, report it and get it fixed, I need to wait literally month before being able to use the bugfix in LDC.

Or, in short, a playground is not appropriate for the reference compiler if you want to be anything else than a toy.