D as A Better C?

[Xavier Bigand]

Le 12/02/2014 00:12, Adam Wilson a écrit :
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:10:13 -0800, Xavier Bigand
> <flamaros.xavier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 11/02/2014 20:43, Walter Bright a écrit :
>>> I've toyed with this idea for a while, and wondered what the interest
>>> there is in something like this.
>>>
>>> The idea is to be able to use a subset of D that does not require any of
>>> druntime or phobos - it can be linked merely with the C standard
>>> library. To that end, there'd be a compiler switch (-betterC) which
>>> would enforce the subset.
>>>
>>> (First off, I hate the name "better C", any suggestions?)
>>>
>>> The subset would disallow use of any features that rely on:
>>>
>>> 1. moduleinfo
>>> 2. exception handling
>>> 3. gc
>>> 4. Object
>>>
>>> I've used such a subset before when bringing D up on a new platform, as
>>> the new platform didn't have a working phobos.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> If I correctly understand class will stay usable?
>> So IMO it's just like if you said : "I want do a fork of D2 without
>> GC". If you are going to this way some people will certainly fork this
>> D2-BetterC version and add it a new standard library more like QtCore.
>>
>> In this case why not simply improve the D modularity and put features
>> you want remove as options? The main issue is about how phobos have to
>> manage memory, with or without GC, maybe both?
>>
>> If you want go to the modularity, it's really nice, but maybe it will
>> simpler to remove only GC and reboot phobos. Maybe it can help D
>> contributors to be focused on system aspects of language instead of
>> full-featured that can be reached only with a big community or
>> commercial patterns.
>>
>
> Classes rely on Object. It's better C, not C++. You'll still have structs.
>
Object isn't only for runtime type info and others basics properties of 
classes?