What can be done to reduce executable size?

[Sean Kelly]

On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 12/16/11 1:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> This is fine, but the whole point of static ctors in D is to
>> eliminate all the stupid workarounds required to use statics in C++.
>> I'd much rather we find a way to make the use of static ctors more
>> efficient than give up on the feature.
> 
> I agree, but then I think we have a design that's already there. This discusses working some kinks out of the implementation. Also, the context of the runtime/standard library is an appropriate place to take less usual measures for the benefit of many.

But at the same time, the standard library should be an example of how to do things "the right way."  By preferring the C++ approach over static ctors in the standard library, we're suggesting that static ctors are not the right approach for the discriminating programmer.  I do agree that the design is already there, but perhaps the implementation needs refinement?