D as A Better C?

[Mike]

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 02:23:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 12 February 2014 07:12, Frank Bauer <y at z.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent idea. All the cries (including mine) for a non-GC D
>> would stop at once.
>
>
> No they wouldn't. This is not what I'm asking for in any of my 
> posts.
> This is almost exclusively useful in tiny-embedded environments 
> (ie,
> microcontrollers).
>
>
> Instead, we could focus on gradually bringing
>> all the remaining features of D-Full into D-Core over the next
>> years. Walter would have to judge on that, but to an outsider 
>> it
>> looks doable without too much resources.
>>
>> And, as I firmly believe, this could make the difference 
>> between
>> D getting accepted by the C++ crowd on one side and D
>> disappearing from the scene as just another C# / Java clone
>> (untrue, but I talk about public perception).
>>
>
> I don't actually think this is what the 'no GC' crowd want. C++ 
> programmers
> will not be satisfied with this. They'll see it as a step 
> backwards towards
> C, not forwards.

Seconded!