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