D as A Better C?
Jacob Carlborg
doob at me.com
Wed Feb 12 12:10:42 PST 2014
On 2014-02-11 20:43, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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?)
-no-runtime
> 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?
I don't mind it.
Funny thing tough: complaining that warnings are not good because they
would create a separate language. Then I see this proposal.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list