D as A Better C?

1100110 0b1100110 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 12 22:51:36 PST 2014


On 2/11/14, 17:15, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 21:11:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/11/2014 11:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> (First off, I hate the name "better C", any suggestions?)
>>
>> How about "EmbeddedD", though that wouldn't be entirely accurate?
>
> I program ONLY embedded systems in D and I very much dislike the idea of
> introducing a new name.  There should be only one D , but there's no
> reason features couldn't be enabled/disabled with compiler switches
> (-fno-exceptions, -fno-rtti)
>
> There's no reason to aggregate compiler switches into a single name.  I
> f users want no exceptions, no gc, no objects, etc... then they should
> add -fno-exceptions, -fno-gc, -fno-objects, etc... to their compiler flags.
>
> Please, I beg you! No new names. Please don't fragment the language.
> Just make it a little more modular.
>
> Mike


I agree, if this is strictly restricting the language to a core subset, 
then I cant see it having any effect.  If you don't like it don't use it.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list