On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 16:12:34 UTC, drug wrote:
> On 2/18/20 6:30 PM, jxel wrote:
>>
>
> IMO you are wrong if you think that dropping dmd will increase man power in ldc/gdc land. Who wants to contribute to ldc/gdc already doing it. It is open source - people contribute to projects they like, you can not tell them what to do. Efforts are not divided - if dmd would be dropped people who doesn't contribute to ldc/gdc won't start doing that.

Yes dropping DMD wont suddenly move a bunch of developers over to LDC. But over time if LDC is the official compiler, new users, developers, contributors are more likely to work on LDC related issues if thats where they've been guided from day 1. Yes people work on what they need or interests them, but change the focus to LDC, and eventually what people need and are interested in doing is more likely to be there than on DMD.

I cant believe people are so short sighted on this.

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:08:45 UTC, NaN wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 16:12:34 UTC, drug wrote:
>> On 2/18/20 6:30 PM, jxel wrote:
>>>
>>
>> IMO you are wrong if you think that dropping dmd will increase man power in ldc/gdc land. Who wants to contribute to ldc/gdc already doing it. It is open source - people contribute to projects they like, you can not tell them what to do. Efforts are not divided - if dmd would be dropped people who doesn't contribute to ldc/gdc won't start doing that.
>
> Yes dropping DMD wont suddenly move a bunch of developers over to LDC. But over time if LDC is the official compiler, new users, developers, contributors are more likely to work on LDC related issues if thats where they've been guided from day 1. Yes people work on what they need or interests them, but change the focus to LDC, and eventually what people need and are interested in doing is more likely to be there than on DMD.
>
> I cant believe people are so short sighted on this.

What does "dropping DMD" mean? Are you going to go around breaking kneecaps if you catch someone working on DMD? It's an open source project and people who want to work on it are going to work on it.

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:36:38 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:08:45 UTC, NaN wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 16:12:34 UTC, drug wrote:
>>> On 2/18/20 6:30 PM, jxel wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO you are wrong if you think that dropping dmd will increase man power in ldc/gdc land. Who wants to contribute to ldc/gdc already doing it. It is open source - people contribute to projects they like, you can not tell them what to do. Efforts are not divided - if dmd would be dropped people who doesn't contribute to ldc/gdc won't start doing that.
>>
>> Yes dropping DMD wont suddenly move a bunch of developers over to LDC. But over time if LDC is the official compiler, new users, developers, contributors are more likely to work on LDC related issues if thats where they've been guided from day 1. Yes people work on what they need or interests them, but change the focus to LDC, and eventually what people need and are interested in doing is more likely to be there than on DMD.
>>
>> I cant believe people are so short sighted on this.
>
> What does "dropping DMD" mean?
It means dropping the backend DMD code generator, and use llvm as a backend instead.

Personally I think the frontend and the backend need to be separate projects. It quite clear that the backend is walter baby, and it better for him to work and improve on it on his own accord without have to wait for pr approval from other people.

-Alex

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 20:04:22 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

>> What does "dropping DMD" mean?
> It means dropping the backend DMD code generator, and use llvm as a backend instead.

That doesn't explain how you're going to force others (Walter) to stop working on it, which is required in order to drop it.

On 2/18/2020 10:10 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 05:42:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> so it is inlining both forms. If you do have trivial functions that aren't being inlined, please let me know. Thanks!
> 
> Anything with a 'switch':
> 
> void foo() {
>      switch(true) {
>          default:
>      }
> }

That's true, it's also true for loops. Though trivial functions with switches seem to me to be rare.

Keep in mind that the inliner is part of the dmd front end, not the back end. The inliner would be more effective if it was part of the back end, but that comes with a major memory/time penalty (intermediate code would have to be generated for all functions, even ones not being compiled, and kept around in memory).

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:36:38 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:08:45 UTC, NaN wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 16:12:34 UTC, drug wrote:
>>> On 2/18/20 6:30 PM, jxel wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO you are wrong if you think that dropping dmd will increase man power in ldc/gdc land. Who wants to contribute to ldc/gdc already doing it. It is open source - people contribute to projects they like, you can not tell them what to do. Efforts are not divided - if dmd would be dropped people who doesn't contribute to ldc/gdc won't start doing that.
>>
>> Yes dropping DMD wont suddenly move a bunch of developers over to LDC. But over time if LDC is the official compiler, new users, developers, contributors are more likely to work on LDC related issues if thats where they've been guided from day 1. Yes people work on what they need or interests them, but change the focus to LDC, and eventually what people need and are interested in doing is more likely to be there than on DMD.
>>
>> I cant believe people are so short sighted on this.
>
> What does "dropping DMD" mean? Are you going to go around breaking kneecaps if you catch someone working on DMD? It's an open source project and people who want to work on it are going to work on it.

I assume "dropping DMD" just means making LDC the main reference compiler instead of DMD.

It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about perception, for example new users will almost always start with the official compiler. So you start to build more user base around LDC, and over time, if the d core team is focused in that direction, most people will follow suit.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:11:08AM +0000, NaN via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:36:38 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
[...]
> > What does "dropping DMD" mean? Are you going to go around breaking kneecaps if you catch someone working on DMD? It's an open source project and people who want to work on it are going to work on it.
> 
> I assume "dropping DMD" just means making LDC the main reference compiler instead of DMD.
> 
> It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about perception, for example new users will almost always start with the official compiler. So you start to build more user base around LDC, and over time, if the d core team is focused in that direction, most people will follow suit.
[...]

Good luck getting Walter to agree to abandoning DMD and working on LDC instead.


T

-- 
Bare foot: (n.) A device for locating thumb tacks on the floor.

On Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 01:54:45 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:11:08AM +0000, NaN via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 19:36:38 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> [...]
>> > What does "dropping DMD" mean? Are you going to go around breaking kneecaps if you catch someone working on DMD? It's an open source project and people who want to work on it are going to work on it.
>> 
>> I assume "dropping DMD" just means making LDC the main reference compiler instead of DMD.
>> 
>> It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about perception, for example new users will almost always start with the official compiler. So you start to build more user base around LDC, and over time, if the d core team is focused in that direction, most people will follow suit.
> [...]
>
> Good luck getting Walter to agree to abandoning DMD and working on LDC instead.
>
>
> T

No body expect him to. Just how the official DMD isn't built with LDC, why there isn't a 64 bit version of DMD on Windows, why Optlink is still even a thing, why restrictions are placed in DMD to workaround an Optlink bug instead of fixing it. No one expects these things to change. What seems like common sense means nothing to someone stubborn and blinded by pride.

On 20/02/2020 9:04 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
> Personally I think the frontend and the backend need to be separate projects. It quite clear that the backend is walter baby, and it better for him to work and improve on it on his own accord without have to wait for pr approval from other people.

Given the end goal of dmd as a library, this makes a lot more sense today than it did 5 years ago.

I am all for splitting the frontend from dmd into a new repository.

On 20/02/2020 4:35 PM, jxel wrote:
> Optlink is still even a thing

Which is going the way of the dodo soon enough.

The alternative needs to mature in production for a while before we swap.