Thoughts about D
Adam D. Ruppe
destructionator at gmail.com
Sun Dec 3 19:00:39 UTC 2017
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 at 12:20:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It may indeed work to use a special druntime. My expectation,
> however, is that it's a lot more work trying to develop and
> support another runtime library, and a lot more work for the
> user trying to get that library worked into his build system.
It's pretty easy, actually, and you can then selectively opt into
features by copying function implementations as you need them.
That said, I like the idea of betterC just working... as long as
it doesn't break the opt-in option.
> Meanwhile, we've got -betterC today, and it's simple and it
> works.
It is a bit simpler than the old way, but not that much... like
other people have copy/pasted my minimal object.d into new
projects and gotten it to work pretty easily. Downloading a file
and compiling isn't much different than compiling with -betterC.
(And actually, my minimal one gives you classes and exceptions if
you want them too via -version! And is bare-metal compatible as
well, which -betterC still needs a few little stubs to work on
right now.)
So it is one thing to say "this is a bit more convenient", but
don't say "this enables something D couldn't do before". The
latter is patently false in all contexts, and in some of those
contexts, further spreads FUD about druntime.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list