Re:D 2.096 and other news
by z77dj3kl on Wednesday March 24, 2021 @12:34PM
(#26569465)
The more time I spend with Python, the more it seems to me that a language defined abstractly and having multiple implementations (none "official") seems to be the healthiest compared to one with a reference compiler/interpreter. D seems to have one "reference compiler" and just a "reference manual".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
You wouldn't have two or more reference compilers -- that would defeat the point. There are three popular D compilers, one of which (DMD) can be considered the reference.
As for "reference manual" -- well, every tool should have a reference manual. The "reference" here has a different connotation. I think you might be conflating "reference manual" with "formal specification", which is not accurate in this case (and in most cases).
Re:D 2.096 and other news
by djwatson24 on Wednesday March 24, 2021 @02:26PM
(#26571133)
D has three fully functional compilers on Linux, and is probably in better shape than python, rust, even c++ in that regard.
There is only one frontend though.
The advantage of multiple compilers is that people find subtle differences which humans miss by only reading the spec. Since D has only one frontend, it does not get that benefit although it can technically claim to have three compilers.
I'm not sure how this actually applies to D? There are definitely niggles with how dmd is currently implemented but they are usually quite hard to bump into day to day.
This is a valid criticism; yet a spec is "code" that has to be maintained and created, so in the context of open source someone has to do it. An ISO-quality spec needs a lot of efforts to happen.
Thing have been getting slowly better over time, with this small specification: https://dlang.org/spec/intro.html