Hacker News Reader

Comment by cenuij | Hacker News Reader

I don't follow you on this. You could just as well say; since Go is already in GCC I don't need another compiler to write Go and I don't need to write any D, or C++ or...

In any case D and Go are very different beasts

View on HN

Yeah I wasn't clear, I mean one of the big things putting me off using D more was having to download DMD, so I'd be more inclined to write Go, if this gets merged I won't be.

Why? Both compilers are just one apt-get away.

One thing to remember is that AFAIK no D2 compiler implements the whole language, and even DMD, which is the 'canonical' implementation seems to be well known for its copious bugs. This is not surprising given how huge and complex the language is.

Go's compilers (like all code) also have bugs, but you rarely if ever run into them, even given their youth and the blinding rate of improvement, they are quite stable.

D1's compiler was great when D did as little as Go does. Also please stop spreading FUD - the current compiler is eminently usable.

"was great", implying you are conceding it now has faults but are suggesting this is only because it does more than Go does.. I'll let that stand for the furtherance of this conversation but I do disagree with your assertion...

"current compiler is eminently usable", didn't you just concede half a sentence ago that it is now full of bugs?

Well we're not in court. I simply meant to say that it takes longer to write a compiler for a larger language, and that today the D compiler is of good quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com