D as A Better C?

inout inout at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 10:06:59 PST 2014


On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 19:43:00 UTC, 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?)
>
> 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?

-no-moduleinfo
-no-exceptions
-no-gc
-no-object

There is absolutely NO need to give any name to that beast.
Otherwise, it's an excellent idea!
You could still use classes e.g. with C++ linkage.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list