D as A Better C?

[Frustrated]

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 06:51:37 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
> 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.

And this is the crux of the problem. For some, any change is bad
because they are happy and do not care about the rest. Simply
drawing a imaginary boundary inside d and labeling it "the core"
isn't much of a change... unless you hate change. (we can talk
about what to do with the core all day long but it is irrelevant
if we can't even draw the boundary because it freaks people out
and give them hemorrhoids and hard palpitations)