D as A Better C?

[Rel]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 15:46:38 UTC, Tim Krimm wrote:
> 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.
Well in my opinion the language should be started with a fixed 
number of features, that are not dependent on runtime, then 
improve the language by adding features supported by runtime 
library. Too bad that D doesn't officially support a subset 
without runtime depemdencies, so we have to either use C/C++ or 
keep on trying to hack on of D compilers. On the other hand Rust 
can be used without runtime libraries.