>>35
LLVM doesn't support DragonBall, but isn't it sensible to assume that D would run on all the architectures LLVM does support?
Supporting multiple architectures with an LLVM backend isn't as straightforward as you seem to think, especially if your language has low level features. It's still pretty funny but realistically I can't blame them at all.
I wonder why "D programmers" use such a garbage language. Maybe they came from a PHP background (no offense to PHP programmers) and discovered the wonders of "native code."
True story: I know a bunch of people who got swept up in earlier waves of D hype a few years ago. The ones who got there via C became very cynical ("YES ANDREI TELL US MORE ABOUT THE BEAUTY OF RANGES") and moved on to less baffling projects like Go and Clojure. The ones who got there via Perl are still D zealots. I'm not sure what to infer from that.