D as A Better C?

Tim Krimm invalidEmail at 123.com
Wed Feb 19 07:46:36 PST 2014


On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 12:20:52 UTC, Rel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 19:43:00 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> 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?
> So may I ask, what is official decision on the subject? Quite a 
> lot of people were begging for it for a long time. Obviously 
> I'd like to have this feature in D because it would finally 
> allow game, embedded, system (and operating system) developers 
> to use good, modern and beautiful language for their needs. As 
> for me I've been waiting for this for a long time. Hacking on 
> compiler and phobos in order to make it generate 
> stdlib-indepentent code may be interesting from time to time, 
> but keeping such kind of project up-to-date with each new 
> version of the compiler can be quite hard. Supporting a subset 
> of D language features suitable for system/embedded programming 
> and porting seems to be the best decision in this case.

I have also been waiting for something like this for a long time.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list