D as A Better C?

Dejan Lekic dejan.lekic at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 10:48:48 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?

I think this is a good idea, and I believe a good result can come 
up from some further brainstorming.

A new, potential name for it: Diny (made from "D" and "tiny", 
pronounced similar to "deeny")

I would, however, rather have a normal D compiler being able to 
completely disable GC, exception handling, etc. However, I think 
it may be good to have modules...


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list