D as A Better C?

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 19:43:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> The subset would disallow use of any features that rely on:
>
> 1. moduleinfo
> 2. exception handling
> 3. gc
> 4. Object

I think this would kill the usefulness. I've written little D 
runtimes (doesn't even use the C runtime!) to build working 
programs that use this stuff and it didn't take a lot of code.

I'd prefer it if the switch ONLY suppressed generation of 
typeinfo or moduleinfo... and I think there was something else, 
we have a betterC bugzilla entry that summarized the last 
discussion.

But still, I'd say it would be better to just not generate some 
of these things and let the user deal with it. They might 
manually opt-in to certain things and might not... and I'd say go 
ahead and leave it as linker errors too.


If we want other stuff to help, do it with the whole D language, 
for example @nogc has been discussed and might be useful here, 
while also being useful with the regular druntime.