Migrating dmd to D?

[SomeDude]

On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 18:48:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> 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.

I believe a subset of D could prove interesting to C programmers 
the same way the full D language looks interesting to C++ 
programmers. With the added benefit that one could fairly easily 
learn the full language from the subset language.