D as A Better C?

[inout]

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 19:47:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 13.02.2014 19:06, schrieb inout:
>> 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.
>
> Can we also get a build tool that produces all combinations for 
> libraries distributed in binary form?
>
> --
> Paulo

These could be linker flags. If you distribute your library as a
.lib, all of those could be present (and only stripped at
link-time).