Migrating dmd to D?

[Dicebot]

On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 17:26:52 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
> For the same reason that most embedded languages use C and not 
> C++. Obviously it is easier to implement a subset of something 
> than the full set(at the very least, less work). Most embedded 
> applications don't have the resources to deal with higher level 
> constructs(since these generally come at a real cost). For 
> example, a GC is generally an issue on small embedded apps. The 
> D core language spec would have to be GC agnostic(in fact, I 
> think the full spec should be).

As an embedded guy I dream of direct @safe opposite, somewhat 
similar to @nogc proposal but even more restrictive, one that 
could work with minimal run-time. I have tried to interest 
someone in experiments with D at work but lack of compiler 
verified subset that is embedded-ready was a big issue.